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 ...
Sure, me and Antonin Scalia - Super Liberals. That argument is very compelling. /s
You should familiarize yourself with the positions of such plainly conservative organizations like the Heritage Foundation and the Family Research Council have to say about drugs in America before you continue to lob ad hominem attacks at people, like you're so eager to do.
"The rest of us like the Founding notion of enumerated powers explicitly listed and restricted. "
I see. I suggest that you pick yourself up another copy, because my copy clearly has the Necessary & Proper Clause as well as the Commerce Clause in Art. I, Sec. 8.
Maybe yours is smudged, or something.
Both come from plants.
And I wouldn’t want either one on a sandwich.
Abortion was snuck through under Roe v Wade under the pretext of a privacy violation.
Gov’t didn’t have the right to invade a woman’s privacy to find out if she was having an abortion - essentially.
But.... it can kick down doors, shoot people, stomp on dogs and murder children to stop people from smoking pot.
So... yeah. USA!! USA!!! USA!!
you are even a worse fool than I thought
People do not commit crimes because drugs are illegal
they commit crimes because they want to get high and get more drugs
increase the useage of drugs and you will increase crime
FOOL!
increase the useage of drugs and you will increase crime"
first: I am susspecting I am speaking with a conservative?
Think of it as a commodity of any type
This is a real simple case of supply and demand. When the supply is low or hard to get then costs go up even if demand is lower.
You are omitting from your equation the availability of the product. When it is legal availability is more prevalent such as rice or corn. When it is illegal the product is less prevalent and harder to get such as Truffles or Wagyu Steak.
even if demand is higher
He said some nonsense like heroin had to be legalized because “we don’t have these rights so we can talk about the weather, we have to have the right to talk about controversial things.”
Well, just keep talking Ole’ Ron, we won’t put you in jail. In fact, why don’t you say some even dumber and more controversial things. You have complete freedom to make a dope of yourself, do not fear, we will not stop you, it’s your God-given right.
ummm, making it legal is going to reduce supply??
Is THAT what you are implying??
Because if it’s MORE available, that means MORE people are doing it or the same people are doing it MORE
So, i guess the black market wouldn’t work as far as availability on this?
And NOT ONE of you pro druggie losers speak of the effect of drugs on a person that happen regardless of it being legal or not
My God, you pro druggie people are so insane...
Heroine? Which one? Jane Parker of Tarzan.
That’s the same argument made by apologists for alcohol prohition. They were wrong and so are you. BTW, hard drugs were LEGAL in the U.S. until the 1910s. Are you seriously arguing that Americans in 1911 had MORE of a drug problem than today?
Just like a good little Socialist...
Take your emanations and jam 'em up your penumbra...
If you don't think that the Federal Government is fully within its constitutional authority to regulate how, when and where products come into this country, then you must have been condemned to a public school education. For that, I'm sorry.
All heroin is imported into this country illegally. There's nothing unconstitutional about enforcing the sovereignty of our NATIONAL border or regulating trade with other countries. Don't believe me? After you find that new copy of the Constitution you desperately need, check out the first paragraph of Art. I, Sec 9 where it says...
"The Migration or Importation of such Persons as any of the States now existing shall think proper to admit, shall not be prohibited by the Congress prior to the Year one thousand eight hundred and eight, but a tax or duty may be imposed on such Importation, not exceeding ten dollars for each Person."
What are they talking about? Slaves. They're talking about the importation of the commodity known as slaves. And, why is this provision in there? It was a compromise with the Carolinas to ensure that slave importation wouldn't be banned until sometime after 1808. They're including a provision to keep the Congress from banning the importation of slaves? Why? Because through the power of the Commerce Clause, Congress has the Constitutional authority to ban the importation of anything. Gee, how about that?
"Just like a good little Socialist..."
There you go again, using words you don't understand.
Thanks OldDeckHand.
This is true and I was not implying the other.
very simple supply and demand. If the supply is difficult to acquire the cost goes up and the demand is still high. One figure is about 10% of the population use it no matter if it is legal or not.
thus if the cost is so they can not buy it without crime they will commit crimes. Then you have the gangsters selling it.
This creates two separate groups of criminal activity both very dangerous that can be eliminating or close to eliminating with one law.
Then you said,
"NOT ONE of you pro druggie losers speak of the effect of drugs on a person that happen regardless of it being legal or not"
Yes, I did. Repeat, "I don't give a crap"
It is the crime that i care about it has gotten out of hand. you will know what I am talking about when you get shot at when your minding your own business.
At least my diploma came from a school instead of off the back of a box of Cracker Jacks.
As for your specious dodge, you know damn well that the Courts have "found" a right to "regulate"/ban intra-State activities. Completely absent logic or Constitutional basis. Further, since when is a Person a "substance"? The regulatory control you cite clearly says "Persons". A perfect example of the liberal "mission creep" mindset I had you pegged as having.
Of course, I'm sure you have no problem with that either.
As for banning things coming into the Country, it's nice to know you approve of Bush's Eastern bloc firearms import ban as well. I knew you'd come up with a pro-gun control stance at some point.
There you go again, using words you don't understand.
Socialism. 1. a theory or system of social organization that advocates the vesting of the ownership and control of the means of production and distribution, of capital, land, etc., in the community as a whole.
Exactly what you are advocating. You are advocating for a Drug War, and the concomitant loss of liberty in every other area of our lives due to Drug War policies being applied everywhere else. From Search and Seizure to gun control. All started with the failed war on Alcohol being applied to the equally failed war on drugs.
Not that I expect to change your mind. You'd have to give up too many lovingly held and defended beliefs in the rightness of your cause. That sh*tting on the Constitution is worth it if you can keep even one (insert evil substance de jure) from making it into this Country.
Contraband and asset forfeiture laws represent one of the most heinous attacks on Liberty that we have ever seen in this nation.
And most "conservatives" have swallowed it hook, line, and sinker.
What part of "all heroin in the US is IMPORTED" don't you understand?
Moreover, despite the protestations of people like you, since the early 19th century, the commerce clause has been held to mean "It is the power to regulate; that is, to prescribe the rule by which commerce is to be governed".
If you illegally import a product into the country, that is a FEDERAL concern. If you then take that illegally imported product and SELL it across state lines, that is another FEDERAL concern.
"Further, since when is a Person a "substance"? "
Clearly you don't know a thing about history, much less the original intent of the clause I cited. To people who weren't condemned to a life of public education, the intent of that particular constitutional provision is well known.
Since the mid-17th century, slaves in the American colonies were legally recognized PROPERTY. Just before the Art. I prohibition on Congress expired, Congress passed The Act to Prohibit the Importation of Slaves of 1807. This Act wasn't an immigration Act, it was a IMPORTATION act. It didn't forbid black, mulatto or other persons of color from emigrating to the US, it forbid the importation of people for SLAVERY.
"As for banning things coming into the Country, it's nice to know you approve of Bush's Eastern bloc firearms import ban as well"
Ah, now there's the proper employment of a straw man argument. The good news is that apparently you can learn. The bad news is it appears it's a very tedious process.
"Exactly what you are advocating.
What I'm advocating is the application of clearly stated constitutional principles. Just because you don't like those principles, doesn't mean I'm wrong or a Socialist.
distribution at the federal level your not wrong. But socialist you are, if your advocating the present laws to continue.
A Utopian vision is a Utopian vision there is no getting around it.
Studies have shown about 10% of any population will use drugs no matter if they are legal or not.
A Utopian vision believes you can lower the over all percentage by raising the cost through law.
Fine this is true for the moral drug addicts. The law will stop those that want to obey the laws of the country.
Doesn't that just sound brilliant?
Since drugs are more availabel today, are you arguing against that?
Since we wer more moral then, are you arguing against that?
You PRO DRUGGIE LOSERS are insane!
Actually, it *will*. We've seen this with teenage abstinence, that without meaningful social stigma attached to promiscuity, casual sex goes up.
It's the same for speeding, and for taxes, too.
Government sanction affects behaviour at the margin first: but the change in "where the line is drawn" can have significant delayed societal / social-networking effects.
Cheers!
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.