Posted on 01/31/2012 12:00:06 PM PST by presidio9
The first primaries of 2012 are complete, but the fight over the proper role of government continues. The question before GOP primary voters is who best reflects their own answer to that question, and then, who is best suited to make that case to the American people?
A clear winner has yet to emerge, but there is little question about who has captured the loyalty of young Republican voters on this issue. Although finishing fourth overall, Ron Paul once again won the youth vote in South Carolina, winning 31% of ages 18-29, compared to Newt Gingrich who won 28%. Paul’s appeal, or more accurately, the appeal of Paul’s limited government message, is a key story to emerge from the Republican primaries.
There’s no mistaking the trend.
Mitt Romney won the New Hampshire primary, getting approximately 39% of the total vote. Ron Paul finished second with 23%, Jon Huntsman finished third with 17%, and Newt Gingrich and Rick Santorum each won about 9% of the vote.
Yet young voters would have picked a different winner. According to Fox News exit polls, in New Hampshire, Paul won nearly half (46%) of the votes of people ages 18-29, while Romney won second place with just 26%.
Paul also won the youth vote in Iowa. In the Hawkeye State almost half (48%) of the Republican caucus goers ages 18-29 supported Paul, compared to 23% for the otherwise victorious Santorum, and 14% for Romney.
What is so appealing about Paul to young voters? One answer is that Paul has been the most outspoken candidate defending the importance of free enterprise and the limited role of government. And he has had a
(Excerpt) Read more at foxnews.com ...
Ok, I get it you want easy to access legal recreational drugs...
Fortunately society is still sane about that...
Fun fun fun...
"What are the most common poisons for adults? Pain medicines (analgesics) which can be over-the-counter, prescribed, or illegal. Examples include aspirin, oxycodone, acetaminophen, methadone, and ibuprofin." - http://www.aapcc.org/dnn/PoisoningPrevention/FAQ.aspx
Yes, like I said, suicidal. Hell I’ll add stupid too.
Adding stupid contradicts your earlier claim, "no one would take too much Tylenol unless they were suicidal".
Ok, I get it you want easy to access legal recreational drugs...
I want an end to the costly and futile War On Drugs whose only accomplishments are increasing addicts' motivation to commit theft and channeling inflated profits into criminal hands.
Fortunately society is still sane about that...
Society is currently sane about the easy to access legal recreational drug alcohol - and by 50% to 46% Americans favor legalizing marijuana.
but losing control on heroin can cause you to tox up to a lethal amount without even knowing it...
A major cause of heroin OD is variable potency, which could be eliminated with legalization and regulation.
So exactly how would a sane adult, following directions, poison themselves on Tylenol?
And exactly how does stupid contradict suicidal? It's additive if nothing else. Either you are suicidal and take an purposeful over dose or are a moron and cant follow directions, which would be a stretch but I add it to cover the possible bases. Most sane folk, even of debatable smarts know to take two pills.
And while I will defer to you expertise on heroin though I have heard that before and will concur, let us assume a pure regulated (oops) heroin is produced. It, as well as others, is still a mind altering drug that cause the user to lose the ability to control themselves, drop from reality and indeed invokes a desire for more of the drug starting a cyclical spin into overdose So what is going to control that. Remember we are dealing with a wholly different set of drugs, not pharmaceutical, but recreational. And yes, there are addictive prescription drugs but lets stay in reality here. Recreationals have a wholly other purpose and intent and are designed to alter minds and reasoning.
I see you also have bouts of self-discussion!
Perhaps the heroin wasn’t pure enough...
I’m thinking meth-head.
Who said they were following directions?
Adding stupid contradicts your earlier claim, "no one would take too much Tylenol unless they were suicidal".
And exactly how does stupid contradict suicidal?
Simple: if you concede that a stupid nonsuicidal person might take too much Tylenol, you can no longer claim, "no one would take too much Tylenol unless they were suicidal".
let us assume a pure regulated (oops)
Why "oops"? Alcohol is regulated, and I'm fine with that.
heroin is produced. It, as well as others, is still a mind altering drug that cause the user to lose the ability to control themselves, drop from reality
(Ditto for the recreational mind-altering drug alcohol, by the way.)
and indeed invokes a desire for more of the drug starting a cyclical spin into overdose
Sometimes - also sometimes true for alcohol. Is that a sufficient reason to ban that drug?
Assumes facts not in evidence.
Sheesh. What a moronic statement.
1) There has NEVER been anything other than a token war against drugs.
2) As if allowing these substances to be produced by the government (yes, let's allow a governmental legal distrubition of mind altering drugs for the purpose of mind alteration be allowed /s) would somehow prevent those addicted to these drugs immediately and completely stop committing crimes.
Can anyone else see any dangers to having the government overseeing and regulating the production of mind altering drugs used for recreational purposes? Anyone? Does anyone study history anymore? The level of stupidity involved with those who want to legalize these drugs is staggering.
I think you answered your own question. Because an action "affects" someone else, there may be a need for some sort of third-party arbiter, or even proscription under the law of certain kinds of behavior, depending on the extent of the "affect". What that extent is has to be determined by the will of the people (though that is not always perfect judgement). That is what we have legislatures for. No I don't think the government should be as extensive and intrusive as it is today, but neither do I want it to simply go away. Governments must be kept in check and they must tread lightly, but they can serve a good purpose.
It is also a good idea to seriously examine the principle of "as long as it doesn't hurt someone else" or as you put it in a slightly different variation, "as long as it violates no other individual's rights." Personally, I think I have a right to drive on streets where I do not have to risk my or my family's safety because someone has decided to drive under the influence of whatever chemical influence they are under at the time. You may argue rightly that is of a different order than whether someone can ingest their drug of choice. That is true, but it is all about where we draw the line--the extent of the affect. There are societal costs to drug use and even certain sexual behaviors that are not immediately measured in a direct affect on another individual. Society has to weigh those costs and make a decision. For now the mechanism that we have to do that is through representative government.
Flaccid tu quoque.
LOL...
Indeed...
Sheesh. What a moronic statement.
1) There has NEVER been anything other than a token war against drugs.
Tens of billions of taxpayer dollars every year - some "token." How much of our money would you like to spend on your jihad?
2) As if allowing these substances to be produced by the government
Who said anything about government production? You're hallucinating.
(yes, let's allow a governmental legal distrubition of mind altering drugs for the purpose of mind alteration be allowed /s) would somehow prevent those addicted to these drugs immediately and completely stop committing crimes.
Straw man - nobody said "immediately and completely." Even a partial drop in crime is a plus.
I return to the original claim of yours. That being the legalization of illegal drugs is a conservative position. And, again, I state, emphatically, having been a conservative for the past 34 years, and after having read a great deal of books written by a great many conservative leaders, LEGALIZATION OF DRUGS IS NOT A CONSERVATIVE VALUE. It is, however, a value of Libtards and Libertarians, of whom I view as being two sides to the same coin on this issue. Since you have outed yourself as being either Liberal or Libertarian (with a very large L), there is no further need for discussion with you on this issue. You are free to return to your meth.
We've been at war in Afghanistan and Iraq for how long now? I'd say that the billions, or is it now trillions, we've spent fighting a token war in those two countries, and around the world, provides evidence to the contrary that token wars don't cost much in the way of money. Try again retard.
The drug war a jihad?
Really?
Only time I have ever heard anything of that nature was from a user...
SD, I think that pretty much sums it up and answers the question at the same time...
Got to love the Paulitard druggies...
I think you answered your own question. Because an action "affects" someone else, there may be a need for some sort of third-party arbiter, or even proscription under the law of certain kinds of behavior, depending on the extent of the "affect". What that extent is has to be determined by the will of the people (though that is not always perfect judgement). That is what we have legislatures for.
And if the people decide to get involved in anything other than violations of rights, they've gone farther than they have a right to do.
No I don't think the government should be as extensive and intrusive as it is today, but neither do I want it to simply go away.
False dichotomy - nobody here has advocated anarchy.
Governments must be kept in check and they must tread lightly, but they can serve a good purpose.
It is also a good idea to seriously examine the principle of "as long as it doesn't hurt someone else" or as you put it in a slightly different variation, "as long as it violates no other individual's rights." Personally, I think I have a right to drive on streets where I do not have to risk my or my family's safety because someone has decided to drive under the influence of whatever chemical influence they are under at the time.
Your rights are violated when you are put at risk by a driver impaired by any substance - including the legal drug alcohol. That's not a sufficient basis for banning that drug - and therefore not a sufficient basis for banning any other drug.
There are societal costs to drug use and even certain sexual behaviors that are not immediately measured in a direct affect on another individual.
What costs? At least some of those costs are self-imposed by society and are thus no justification whatsoever for infringing on personal freedoms.
It’s clear that this “person” is drug-addled. I believe I’ll let him rant and rage at himself from now on. He clearly can’t understand reason.
The drug war a jihad?
Really?
Only time I have ever heard anything of that nature was from a user...
Your cowardly ad hominem sums up your position and your character.
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.