Because our bodies belong to the Gubmint.
(this is from a physician?) Sheesh!
There are people, who are so deprived of nutritional knowledge, that they think the five food groups consist of pop, chips, gum, chocolate bars and beer.
I don’t have a problem with the government making available information as to what eating healthy means, but that is as far as the government should be allowed to go.
When you use dope it would be better for you and your family if you just put a gun in your mouth and pulled the trigger.
Faster Cheaper, and less heartbreaking.
OK all you drug enthusiasts, you who want dope legalised start screaming.
“Everyone should agree that the Government has the right and responsibility to “interfere” with the rights of individuals for the common good at a certain point.”
‘Everyone should agree’ a theocracy by any other name is still a theocracy.
At the most basic level, you are not truly free if you do not have the right to put into your system whatever you want. Who gets to decide which chemical compound is legally consumable and which isn’t, and by what argument?
An absolute total misunderstanding of the gospel.
Maybe he does have a point. Just picture how much better society would be if meth was legal.....
Naw, I can't either.
How the question is framed determines the answer. The Question is NOT should drugs be made legal? The Question is does the Federal Government have the authority to impose Drug Prohibition absent a Constitutional Amendment?
Libertarianism is based on an educated and informed society sharing mutual respect. Where is such a place? The USofA fell for Obama. Meth is a national game changer. Let them have it? Huh Ron?
It’’s like Obama stating “they can talk about class warfare all they want”, as though he addressed the issue. Ron Paul's libertarian sophistry is sugarcoated idiocy.
Ron Paul's idealism is just as stupid as Obama’’s Marxism .
Ron Paul: Why Can’t We ‘Put Into Our Body Whatever We Want?’
Actually you can.
You want to drink alcohol? Go for it. You can.
You want to drink that alcohol and drive my kids school bus? Now we have a problem!
You want to smoke that joint? You can. Go for it. You want to pick my daughter up in your car to go on a date? Now you and I have a life changing problem!
Get it yet Mr Nutbag?
You can pretty much do whatever floats your boat. As long as it does not interfere with my boat
I believe that anyone that wants to determine what I say, think, feel and do, as long as I do not in any way infringe upon someone elses civil rights, is at best a socialist, at worst a communist...
I do not care which side of the political spectrum you desire to rule me from, which side you draw laws from. Socialist is as socialist does.
This is why the country is continually drawn to the left... commmunists with to impose their laws and beliefs upon us.... but, the so called social(ist) conservatives with to impose their laws and beliefs up us also... only difference between the two is the side of the political spectrum they wish to impose upon us...
Here is a better idea, how about we live by the constitution, AS WRITTEN?
The constitution had been bastardized by both the liberals (communists) and social(ist) conservatives for so long, that there is just a very small group that realizes what it truly is, what it truly does, and what it truly represents. The author of this article mentions “Democracy”... well we do not live in a democracy, nor is our system of government a “Democracy”. We are a costitutionally mandated federation of indepenedent states. The authors ignorance of the very root of our system of govermnent is typical for a controller.
I do not need or do I desire to have a communist force their world and moralistic views upon me ( would you want bill clintons morals made law, have you forced to comply or face prison?). Nor do I want a social(ist) conservative forcing their world and moralistic views upon me.
I am a free and independent person, with the right to do what I want in my home, free from swat team raids. As long as I do not infringe upon your rights, you have no right to infringe upon mine.
Flame away...
I thought this thread was going to be about that Fluke slut.
I think Paul borrowed that question from Monica Lewinsky....................
If Brown screws himself up with drugs, Smith and Jones are revealed as fools, not empowered to force Brown to better behavior. If Brown screws other people up through using drugs, that's something else and not what RP is talking about here.
Apparently Sandra Fluke can - and we get to pay for it - and now we get to STFU about it too!
The prohibition on drugs is an attempt to limit the amount of devastation which We The People are then on the hook for fixing. I don't deny that the War on Drugs has failed. There is a lot of devastation, and the prohibition has not really limited it.
But we should stop paying for the cleanup. People who make bad choices should suffer all the consequences. If we got rid of the Nanny State, people would find that the bad aspects of drugs would quickly outweigh the "fun" aspects of drugs.
Step 1) Eliminate the Nanny State
Step 2) Legalize drugs
Doing it in reverse order would be really, really stupid (you'd never get people to agree to removing the safety net after so many additional people were using drugs.
On this point Congreesman Paul is correct.
drugs hurt the person using them and that is their business and none of the governments.
Yours is the progressive’s point of view.