Rand Paul calls for repeal of drug laws; reaches out to minority voters

Washington Examiner ^ | 10-7-2015 | Jason Russell

[Citizen Zed]

Sen. Rand Paul, R-Ky., formally launched his presidential campaign Tuesday with a speech in Louisville. Among the notable quotes from Paul's speech was a comment seemingly meant to raise minority support by calling for reform of federal drug laws that disproportionately lead to incarceration of black Americans.

"I see an America where criminal justice is applied equally and any law that disproportionately incarcerates people of color is repealed," Paul said.

Paul went on to address other topics without expanding much on what kinds of laws he meant. But given his past comments, it's not hard to guess he was talking about the war on drugs. "The war on drugs has become the most racially disparate outcome that you have in the entire country," Paul said in November 2014. "Our prisons are full of black and brown kids. Three-fourths of the people in prison are black or brown."

Lauren Galik, the Director of Criminal Justice Reform at Reason Foundation, said she was excited to hear a Republican presidential candidate campaigning on drug reform. "More than half of our federal prison population right now is there for drugs, many of which are African-American," Galik told the Washington Examiner. "African Americans are more likely to receive a sentence that carries a mandatory minimum term of imprisonment than white individuals."

Mandatory minimums disproportionately affect African American criminals compared to whites and Hispanics. "Although Black offenders in 2012 made up 26.3 percent of drug offenders convicted of an offense carrying a mandatory minimum penalty, they accounted for 35.2 percent of the drug offenders still subject to that mandatory minimum at sentencing," according to the United States Sentencing Commission, an independent federal agency.

[Elyse]

You agreed with the original poster, so I thought you would buy some more stupid crap.

Statists are communists, socialists and totalitarians, so you and the original poster think this board is full of communists, socialists and totalitarians? It did blow my mind that you would think that Freepers could be statists, so I took it one step further for you.

I have been on this board a long time because it is a conservative board with good conservative people that I can discuss issues and candidates with without being insulted and maligned. I have respect for a lot of the Libertarians on this board, but I draw the line when one would call us phony conservatives.

[ConservingFreedom]

You agreed with the original poster

Who said only, "Prohibitionists arriving in 5-4-3-2-1..."

Statists are communists, socialists and totalitarians

That's not an exhaustive list - and I said "moral-statist," which is not coterminous with "statist."

I draw the line when one would call us phony conservatives.

IMO anyone who is so kowtowing toward government as to post "Laws don’t get passed until problems arise" is a statist and no true conservative.

And speaking of lines, I draw one at "libertarians of today don’t believe in personal responsibility."

[Elyse]

Are you implying that I posted “ Laws don’t get passed until problems arise,” or “ Libertarians don’t believe in personal responsibility”.?

[ConservingFreedom]

No. Are you implying that those who did post that text are not part of the "us" you referred to (in post #141) who are not phony conservatives?

[Elyse]

I didn’t post that and I didn’t reply to those posts. I replied to a noob that called people on this board moral statists and phony conservatives because they didn’t want drugs legalized in their state. You agreed with him. I was pretty sure he was a troll, but I didn’t think you were. Let’s both just move on.

[ConservingFreedom]

Are you implying that those who did post that text are not part of the "us" you referred to (in post #141) who are not phony conservatives?

I didn’t post that and I didn’t reply to those posts.

That doesn't answer the question.

I replied to a noob that called people on this board moral statists and phony conservatives because they didn’t want drugs legalized in their state. You agreed with him.

The guy who you called a noob and with whom I agreed said only, "Prohibitionists arriving in 5-4-3-2-1..." And since the article is about Paul's position on federal drug laws, I don't know from where you're dredging up this "legalized in their state" straw man.

(And I continue to maintain that anyone who is so kowtowing toward government as to post "Laws don’t get passed until problems arise" is a statist and no true conservative.)