I wonder if he would also be fine with, say, Hugo Chavez dumping cyanide onto our streets?
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 ...
His Glee Club in the balcony must have been giving each other high fives.
Anybody could check my posting history, I’m no Ron Paul guy, but I thought he raised a good, legitimate point, which is the same point we raise about concealed carry. Liberals say there will be blood in the streets, that a simple fender-bender will turn into a Hogan’s Alley. Ron Paul said that simply because it’s legalized, doesn’t mean so many people are going to say “oh, it’s legal now, I’m gonna go get high on heroine.” Those that want to use and abuse it, are already doing so. Legalizing it won’t make the problem with that specific drug worse.
It’s similar to what happened in the UK and Australia when they banned firearms: crime got much, much worse because it ensured only criminals (those that DO NOT follow the law, for all the Liberals that may find this post) have guns. How much has been wasted on the drug war, when it could be put towards the space program, something which gives us realistic benefits?
I wonder if he would also be fine with, say, Hugo Chavez dumping cyanide onto our streets?
He's done, Jim.
I am watching the replay now. 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.
For the most part the areas the federal government can regulate are limited by Article 1, Section 8. I don't see anything there about protecting people from their own idiocy.
Well, I am a Libertarian and we need to go a LONG way towards getting the Federal Gov’t out of our lives.
The States can make individual drug laws as is going on in California and Oregon where there a levels of legality on Pot.
Get the Fed out, and save our tax dollars.
All rights not given to the Federal Gov’t are reserved to the States and the People. The Constitution does not give the Federal Gov’t the right to regulate drug use.
We only make drug lords rich with Prohibition.
HEY where’s the Spoiler alert!!!!
What happened before, during and after Prohibition?
Except one of the rights/responsibilities of the Federal government is protecting from outside invasion. Heroin is being used just like a chemical weapon against this country. These drugs are mostly produced by third world countries that our sworn enemies of us, illegally smuggled into this country, and our currency used to buy these drugs are sent back to these enemies. There is very little between this and dropping bombs on us.
Let them kill themselves. I don't give a crap.
So we build a fortress-type wall on the southern border, then regulate drugs produced in America. Stupid people continue their stupid practice of using drugs, while those who make them are licensed, regulated, and inspected regularly, while making a profit on aforementioned stupid people.
It’s like Women’s Studies. Just because it’s there, and people pay for it, doesn’t mean it’s good for them.
Hey, does that Constitution thing give the Federal Government the right to regulate uranium enrichment? Just checking.
I understand the libertarian argument, and some of it is persuasive. And, a compelling case can be made for the legalization of some drugs, or at least a decriminalization.
Heroine, OTOH, is heroine. It's not a weed that used to grow naturally in the country. It's a wildly dangerous drug that is HIGHLY processed in a manner that is itself highly dangerous and toxic. And, virtually all of the heroine sold in this country is IMPORTED - the federal government CLEARLY has a right to say what is and what is not importable, do they not?
To say what Paul said in this country is IDIOTIC, and that alone should disqualify you from the White House. I doubt even most Democrats want to legalize heroine.
|
Citizens don't have to point out some provision in the Constitution that allows them to do what they want, the Government has to point out some provision in the Constitution where it is given the specific authority to prevent you from doing what you want.
Saying the Feds should protect the borders and Ports of Entry? Sounds like a good idea. I’ll bet we could keep out more than heroin if we tried.
He just wants cheaper sh*t to inject into his veins.
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.