Drugs, Guns and Madness in the Ron Paul Revolution

Accuracy in Media ^ | 1-4-2012 | Cliff Kincaid

[Samogon]

War on drugs is as stupid and wasteful as Prohibition, admit that. The alternative - legalization. God gives us free will, suicide by chemicals - one of consequences. People make stupid decisions by millions every day, you can't outlaw all of them. Same applies to foreign countries: we can't fix them all. I would rather have them envy us, so we lead by example. That require resources to stay home, hence - isolationism. We would be a lot stronger and capable to respond more effectively to any threat if we keep our peacetime presence all over the world to the minimum. Why do I have to explain such simple concepts?

[JustSayNoToNannies]

While his constitutional economic ideas sound great, he gets himself in deep water when it comes to [...] the issue of legalizing drugs. Staying out of everyone’s business all the time is simply a radical, impossible political ideal in a world full of [...] druggies

What apocalyptic scenario do you see playing out if drugs are legalized?

[Buchal]

There were probably as many opium addicts in the late 1800s as there are drug addicts today. The world has always been immoral and full of vices; we have a big government because we abandoned the Constitution, not because there is more vice now.

[Afronaut]

"Disillusioned young people, brainwashed with illegal mind-altering drugs and armed with weapons in the name of “liberty,”"

He forgot Satanic Rock Music!

What a Maroon.

[Olympiad Fisherman]

That is highly doubtful. It was around, but held in check because of Judeo-Christian values. You will need to show me something conceret on that front. I am also suggesting to you that the abandonment of the constitution in America is primarly a moral problem, not a constitutional one. The problems in our country are far deeper than political.

[Olympiad Fisherman]

The 60’s generation is running the country right now, and they have done an outstanding job in hastening the Apocalypse far quicker than it needs to be.

[JustSayNoToNannies]

There were probably as many opium addicts in the late 1800s as there are drug addicts today.

That is highly doubtful. It was around, but held in check because of Judeo-Christian values. You will need to show me something conceret on that front.

Here you go:

"The peak of opiate addiction in the United States occurred about the turn of the century, when the number probably was close to 250,000 in a population of 76 million, a rate so far never equaled or exceeded. [footnote: David T. Courtwright, Dark Paradise: Opiate Addiction in America before 1940 (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1982) [...] After carefully considering contemporary surveys, importation statistics, and other estimates, and subjecting his findings to modern statistical analysis, Professor Courtwright concluded that the highest rate of addiction in the United States occurred in the 1890s at the maximum rate of 4.59 per 1,000. Today that rate would result in 1. I million addicts, about twice the current official estimate.]"
- "The History Of Legislative Control Over Opium, Cocaine, And Their Derivatives", David F. Musto, MD

[JustSayNoToNannies]

While his constitutional economic ideas sound great, he gets himself in deep water when it comes to [...] the issue of legalizing drugs. Staying out of everyone’s business all the time is simply a radical, impossible political ideal in a world full of [...] druggies

What apocalyptic scenario do you see playing out if drugs are legalized?

The 60’s generation is running the country right now, and they have done an outstanding job in hastening the Apocalypse far quicker than it needs to be.

That doesn't answer the question.

[dcwusmc]

So what are the wrong reasons? For that matter, what are the “RIGHT” reasons? And who decides?

[dcwusmc]

FLASH FLASH FLASH... Our Constitution grants us NOTHING AT ALL. Our RIGHTS come from God. The Constitution is a LIMITATION ON GOVERNMENT. If you think otherwise, it’s only because you’ve never bothered to read the Founding Fathers’ writings on the meaning behind the Constitution and the Declaration of Independence. Get a clue!

[jpsb]

There are two components to isolationism, protectionism and non-interventionism. Paul is a non-interventionist but he is not a protectionist so by definition he is NOT an isolationist. I wish people bashing Paul in thread after thread would do a little research instead of just repeating the establishment lies about Paul.

[Buchal]

I think we are in full agreement that the abandonment of the Constitution is primarily a moral problem. The larger moral rot has produced the immoral, unprincipled politicians who have legislated it away piece by piece.

Where we seem to differ is that I perceive Dr. Paul as being on a higher moral plane than any of his competitors, and more likely to adhere to principles and perhaps make some progress toward restoring the Constitution and morality.

[Olympiad Fisherman]

I think that at the very best we could hope that Ron Paul is a non-interventionist. However, I have a much darker picture of the man.

[dcwusmc]

That would only be because you are listening to the wrong sources. The RNC establishment and the lamestream media.

[jpsb]

McCain
"You allow Hitler to come to power with that kind of attitude of isolationism..."

Paul
Senator and fellow presidential candidate John McCain confuses "isolationism" and "non-intervention," says Paul. "I advocate non-intervention: Not getting involved in the internal affairs of other nations, and not pretending a country like Iraq is equivalent to Nazi Germany."

Continues the Congressman, "Iraq had no Army, no Navy, and no weapons of mass destruction; had nothing to do with 9/11... so the comparison makes no sense."

http://rawstory.com/news/2007/Ron_Paul_Iraq_not_Nazi_Germany_1202.html

[jmc813]

liberties which the American Constitution originally gave them.

The Constitution does not "give" anyone liberties. It enumerates natural God-given liberties. Thanks for giving us a glimpse into the anti-Paul mindset.