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 ...
While suffering from these "creeps" have you had any luck finding that enumerated power that deals with nuclear regulation?
If you had enough money to do it properly and safely, I'm not sure you shouldn't be able to. Nuclear power plants are now built and owned by private businesses. I don't see any reason, subject to the same regulations, why an individual couldn't do the same.
“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.”
Yes, even if we could demonstrate for certain the drug laws were very effective at solving the problem, we’d still want to weigh that benefit very carefully against the liberties we are losing and the increasing state power. Of course, that’s not the case, but many conservatives still don’t seem to bother weighing these costs.
Same regulations? Again, where in the USC is there any enumerated power about "nuclear energy"? From where does the federal government derive its authority to regulate nuclear energy? THAT'S the question I'm asking - whether it's for an individual's sole proprietorship or a large corporation, the ownership status is irrelevant to the question of the regulation authority itself.
That’s unusual. Typically on the stump, Paul starts out saying something reasonable most conservatives or even most Americans can get behind.
Then he keeps talking....
The fact that Paul’s facile, ham-fisted arguments have found such favor among the libertarian movement reflects the intellectual bankruptcy that seems to have taken over libertarianism in general. It’s unfortunate, because the philosophy at the roots of libertarianism has a lot to say in the conservative discussion. To steal a phrase from Justice Scalia, modern libertarianism has become a degraded form of classical liberalism that brings the whole philosophy into disrepute.
Robert Nozick must be spinning in his grave.
We should all be tough on drugs, they are poisoning our culture. By libertarianism I think Reagan was advocating keeping government as small and unobtrusive as possible while still doing the things that we need done.
For instance we don't need 3 or 4 layers of government regulating the same thing. If something can be handled at the state level we don't need the feds butting in.
Things should be handled at the lowest level. The government should not be involved in running family level issues. I don't need them telling me what I should eat, how to flush the toilet, etc.
Organized crime syndicates are pushing the drugs and we need to respond to them in a way that only the federal government can.
Exactly. And the only word I would add is internationally organized crime syndicates. These are, for the most part, off-shore enterprises, some of which even enjoy less-than-covert support from their host governments. What comes into this country, and how it comes into this country is plainly a federal issue.
Don't confuse libertarian with anti-government.
Government is good if it sticks to the authorized functions.
Beat me to it.
Coffee not even remotely hinted about, but drug consumption which removes our ability to control our volition or exercise thereof violate our liberty and freedom. A nanny state isn’t required to protect our God given freedoms.
Difference is the degree of intoxication and prolonged usage leading to the addiction. Some drugs are much quicker acting.
Does it have an effect on mental acuity? Does it have withdrawal symptoms if use is discontinued? Can it sometimes impair your ability to function either with or without it in your system?
And yes, there are Prohibitonists out there just like you who want it regulated. Same with salt and sugar.
A pox on all of you. Like minded ilk regardless of degree. "Government knows better" despite decades worth of evidence to the contrary.
Interestingly, we are having a similar thing happening here in PA. We have a flood of people from NY and NJ here because the climate in those states has been miserable. During the ‘10 midterms, we had a massive GOP sweep on all levels. It appears as though the transplants were the Conservatives smart enough to get out of those states and wanted to put a stop to the same nonsense they left following them.
I hope he also said the dopers would pay their own medical expenses or we sent to some island to waste away and not clog up the hospitals.
I don’t know of anybody losing their volition when they drink a coffee, but I do know of people who lose their freedom to exercise volition when they consume heroin.
No! I don’t believe the State has the right to regulate what you own.
All or nothing argument is Utopian vision it is a liberal limited thinking belief. Why you would call me a fool is interesting.
Yes with costs down more will do it. I don't care. As long as there is prohibition there is more gang crime because there is money in it.
This isn't difficult to understand. You just haven't been shoot at for no reason yet.
I believe that we are on the wrong track. You can not regulate morals. This drug war we have been having for 60 years is not working! More jails for drug users is really not the answer! I’m a constitutionalist that believes that drugs were not regulated until the 20th century. We didn’t throw people in jail for drug use. If they shot someone or broke into their home we did.
I'm not sure I agree with your post regarding legalizing all drugs, but I know one thing, drugs in the U.S. were, until relatively recently, allowed.
Even cocaine in Coca Cola was allowed. Being human is to suffer, especially once youth is past. Even non-life threatening, common ailments like the crippling pain of arthritis, shingles, failing joints, bowel problems, migraines, herniated discs, gout, etc, requie serious pain relief for many people. So having medicines that relieve pain have never in the past been looked at by governments as evil.
I once collected antiquarian books for my private book collection. It was common in the early 1800's for 'home remedy' medical books to contain information on how to grow, or mix, or concoct various pain killing medicines. For that matter, even when I was a boy in the 50's / early 60's, my mother used to send me up to the local drugstore, WITH ONLY HER NOTE, to pick up a bottle of paragoric, ( a liquid opiate) for my teething baby brothers and sister. It was rubbed onto the gums and stopped the pain. It was also used to prevent diarhea, vomiting and upset stomach in general. No prescription needed. One could also purchase cough medicine with codiene, over the counter, for serious coughs such as you get from pneumonia, whooping cough and bronchitis.
THERE will always be people who abuse pain killing drugs, taking them even though they have no pain, but since the so-called "War on Drugs" that began in the 1970s I have not seen any reduction of such abuse. On the contrary, serious drug abuse is higher than ever. Many drugs need to be controlled, but Big Brother really does need to get out of our lives. Their idea of regulating drugs is to fill the prisons to overflow, then build more of them. Odd thing is though, these prison systems are well known to be drug havens.
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.