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 ...
In the 19th century, most of this stuff was legal. Laudanum (as one example) was highly abused and rampant in this country. There was a reason a 100 years ago our country did this.
Concur.
My point being the criminalization of some drugs is an appropriate defense of liberty.
Some drugs destroy liberty.
To defend our liberty, those drugs need be discriminated and their recreational use criminalized.
BRING IT
“Legalization take too much money out of the government system. That’s why it’ll never happen. That’s why the Shill arguments will always be with us. “crack” babies. “Reefer madness”.... whatever it takes.”
BINGO!
And the “law and order” and dogooder Republicans are the tools the state uses to keep the cash flowing in.
Yes, I am calling all you anti-freedom Republicans tools.
I had an uncle who was an alcoholic.
Same argument.
100% correct
Agreed. However, there are plenty of people in both Majority parties who will approve of government agents empowered to shoot you to keep you from harming yourself.
Keep your Nanny State hands off my coffee.
True. Of course, those were years before the tort lawyers began to thrive and multiply.
We used to have over 50 companies that made vaccines. Today, we only have two companies that make vaccines, and those vaccines are generally only produced under a grant of limited liability immunity from the US government. Why? Because the one or two dozen people that die from unintended vaccine reactions make it unprofitable for the producers/distributors because of the increase in liability insurance. No such immunity is going to be granted to the purveyors of drugs like heroin. Thus, there's not a legitimate business in the country that is going to assume that risk - not when the risk of death from heroin is EXPONENTIALLY greater than the risk from even the most controversial vaccine or other medication.
Legalizing heroin will do nothing to counter the black-market importation and distribution of heroin. The drug cartels will continue to smuggle large quantities of heroin into the country, and street corner dealers will thrive. Not a single tax would be collected from the sale of heroin, and to suggest otherwise is pure folly.
“I just saw a message from the Chair of the SC GOP. She is a smokin’ hot chick. We have pasty fat guys running the GOP in PA. It’s not fair.”
You’re welcome.
I’ve taken up a new cause since my move from a liberal union state to SC. Some conservatives use the old saw that yankees moving down south are bringing their liberal voting habits along.
Wrong!
Since I moved to SC, the state has thrown out every liberal in every state-wide office. Ditto on Congressional seats. The only lib still standing is the repulsive racist James Clyburn, protecting by a court-ordered gerrymandered district.
I am taking credit for the state’s recent swing toward conservative representation.
And that highly intelligent Carolinian woman in charge of the SC GOP, that’s my doing, too. I’m getting good at this.
If you have any questions on other good political news rolling through the Palmetto State, please feel free to ask me. I’ll give you my honest, humble opinion.
And don’t blame me for Graham. That happened before I arrived, but I’ll be voting him out in 2014. Bet on it.
:-)
Any debate on the drug war is prone to degenerate into absurdities. It’s unfortunate, because I think it’s an important debate to have.
Yes, but Paul started his statement with an absurdity. When you claim that you have a first amendment right to heroin, you're making an absurd statement - and, it's such an absurd statement, anything that comes after will be ignored.
This is the Paulian default mode, though. You might recall the statement Rand made shortly after he won the GOP Senatorial nomination - he commented in response to a question that the Civil Rights Act of 1964 was unconstitutional and shopkeepers did have a right to keep blacks from the lunch counter because it's a private lunch counter.
While that might be an interesting academic discussion to have amongst friends at a dinner party, to say those words on national TV, much less in public, is politically INSANE. The "defense of heroin is no vice" maneuver that Ron pulled last night, was just ignorant.
So we pass tort reform first, problem solved.
Statists give me the creeps.
I don't know. Why aren't they burning the fields?
Firstly, heroin legalization at the federal level doesn’t mean that heroin would be legal at the state level.
A drug taskforce (swat) officer that I am friends with even admitted to that real problem with hard drugs is the crime that it produces. People will steal to get their fix. Well stealing is illegal already, and in conjunction with drugs the penalty could be heightened. The drug use itself only damages the person that is doing the drugs, and the state should not be their nanny.
The only change you get in Ron Paul’s proposal is the elimination of federal agencies and wasteful spending.
Poisons of many kinds are available at the retail level to anyone who wants to buy them.
It wasn’t created by Luntz and Fox, the buzz started during the debate as he answered questions. He was a champion compared to the kindergartners he was around, especially Fraud Paul.
I’ll concede that heroin is more debilitating, but I won’t concede that tobacco is less addictive. Go to an AA or Narcotics Anonymous meeting and ask how many of them have managed to quit smoking, you might be surprised.
The withdrawal symptoms are different, heroin has more physical withdrawal symptoms certainly, but the urge to want to avoid the withdrawal seems just as strong with both drugs. They both fundamentally become part of the body’s metabolism and the heavily addicted user feels the same need for the drugs as they do for air, water, or food. You might even argue that nicotine is more addictive, since at least with heroin there is some justification for the strong addiction, namely the equally strong narcotic effects. Nicotine, on the other hand, is only a mild stimulant, and doesn’t produce any strong high that would justify the irrational and deadly addiction. So, at the least, it’s more addictive in proportion to it’s effect on the user.
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.