Posted on 05/05/2011 10:01:32 PM PDT by OldDeckHand
While it took a little while for the Republican candidates attending tonight’s debate to get going, the sheer diversity on the panel guaranteed some spirited answers, paramount among them Rep. Ron Paul’s steadfast adherence to civil liberties, which somehow concluded with him supporting legalization of heroin to raucous applause– highlighting the thick tension between conservatives and libertarians on the GOP.
During a “lightning round” where candidates were asked to answer questions about the issues that would give them the most problems during the primaries, both libertarian candidates– Paul and former New Mexico governor Gary Johnson– were asked to defend their liberal stances on drugs. First was Rep. Paul, who Fox’s Chris Wallace confronted with his controversial position that drugs and prostitution should be legalized. His unapologetic response elicited cheers from the crowd, as he argues that, just as “you don’t have the First Amendment so you could talk about the weather,” civil liberties do not exist to protect personal rights upon which most agree. He later likened private freedoms like this to religious freedoms, prompting Wallace’s follow-up: “Are you suggesting that heroin and prostitution are an exercise of liberty?”
(Excerpt) Read more at mediaite.com ...
Well, there's nothing specific in the Constitution that says he can't. ;-)
“Some guy once said that libertarianism is the heart of conservatism. I believe it was Reagan. “
Reagan was pretty tough on drugs
That’s a very good point.
I don’t philosophically like it, but it’s a good point.
The Taliban’s poppies, just like the Columbian commies’ coke, already wind up on our streets. The drug war has proven to be counterproductive to stopping that, it only makes the street value go up if they have any success, which makes the incentive to ship it here even greater.
Maybe if it was legalized, some Americans could grow the stuff and eliminate the need for these unscrupulous foreign suppliers. Just like, after prohibition was ended, the mob got out of the alcohol business.
“Rather than talking about legalization, we should be talking about making the penalties for selling drugs like heroin even more daunting.”
I don’t see how that would work. Drug dealers prefer it when fewer people get into the business, they fight wars to establish monopolies. If we dissuade a few people from getting into the business, then those who remain just consolidate more profits and power unto themselves. As long as there’s a demand, it won’t matter what penalties we assign, since the profits are too astronomically high for some risk takers not to decide to get into the business.
Unless you can somehow eliminate the demand for drugs, you’ll never cure the disease, you’ll only attack the symptoms, and probably quite ineffectually.
“These drugs are mostly produced by third world countries that our sworn enemies of us, illegally smuggled into this country, and our currency used to buy these drugs are sent back to these enemies.”
You do realize that before we outlawed heroin, morphine, etc, that domestic companies were reaping the lion’s share of the profits on this enterprise, and the third worlders were just cheap labor, right?
“human catastrophe is what we have now. Have you been shot at yet over this stupid war?”
I have as well, while standing on the bus stop as a teenager after school. Had they not been such bad shots, I’d be another innocent bystander casualty. I guess since most conservatives don’t live in areas where those types of street drug warfare are prevalent, they just don’t understand what a horrific failure these policies are in practice.
The legal question to ask is not one of usage, but of possession. Can the state or federal government regulate what a citizen possesses, whatever it may be. If the answer to that is yes, then your constitutional argument falls apart.
I’d add to your insightful questions:
How much of the CIA and other US intelligence agencies’ black budgets are funded by drug trafficking profits?
I guess nobody will answer that one, since we the people are not allowed to know.
“They’ll rob, steal, and kill to finance their addiction.”
They rob, steal and kill a WHOLE lot more when you inflate the drug prices through prohibition. How many people rob, steal and kill to finance their cigarette habit, which is just as addictive? Even in municipalities that tax it 900%?
” But those “some” have never seen the destruction heroine brings. Anyone who has will simply say, “yup, its evil.””
It is evil. I’ve seen plenty of friends destroy their lives with the junk, even though it’s already illegal. I just don’t think prohibition is doing anything to deter people from that.
Invalid analogy. Tobacco users are productive members of society. Heroin addicts are not. The effects of nicotine are not the same as the effects of heroin. Also, you would be hard pressed to find people who think nicotine withdrawal is as severe as heroin withdrawal.
Correct. Although I don't subscribe to the notion that substances are evil in an of themselves, drug prohibition simply makes a bad situation much worse. Just like it did with alcohol.
The question was also answered by asking how many people in that auditorium would suddenly become heroin users overnight if it was legalized? Approximately 0. We as a society know the dangers drugs pose, but we can address such problems in much more effective ways than criminalization.
It never ceases to amaze me how so many people who claim to love Liberty are so willing to massively expand state power by embracing the concept of essentially arbitrary contraband law.
IMHO, such a philosophy blindly grants the government virtually unlimited power to criminalize its citizenry. Such Tyranny is always wrong, whether it comes from the stroke of a bureaucrat's pen, or the whims of an authoritarian democratic majority.
The prohibition of herb, is giving us the Zetas MS13, and Eric Holder and co, attempting to subvert the 2nd amendment!
Finally, the prohibition of opiates is giving us the Taliban. If legalized the junkies would be more interested in growing flowers, than stealing for fixes that funnel money to terrorists!
Hey, no problem. While we are at it, why not make Oxycontin, Vicodin and all controlled substances over the counter?
Just because they can be out on the shelf doesn’t mean kids will use them, right?
Is it too early to thank Ron Paul and his worshippers for Obama’s second term?
I also thought RP was quite clearly making an argument about what Freedom means, individual responsibility is key, and the war on drugs has been an enabler of a Police State as well as extremely costly. Overall I thought this debate was very good and all the candidates had a terrific opportunity to show and tell.
I was surprised when I realized that Republicans are not conservatives. Good ol Bush helped my education there. Recently, I've had the same sort of realization regarding 'conservatives'; they are scared to death of freedom. Without government governing their actions, who knows what havoc they would create or trouble they would get into.
Three cheers for the nanny state. People are far too immature to make their own decisions about their lives. Bunch of friggin hypocrites.
Yeah, I know, I must be a druggie wacko for saying such things. Maybe you could have me committed, for my own safety. Can't have my ideas about freedom infecting little minds.
By the way, wastedyears, good post.
When the drug effects volition, legislation and discrimination of that drug is appropriate.
Expressed another way, if the drug causes harm and its use causes addiction, such that a person is no longer has liberty to decide not to take the drug, then removing restraint from its access condones the removal of liberty.
Good analysis.
wait till everyone’s high, and Cocaine is cheap, then tell me drugs dont cause crime...FOOL!
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.