Ron Paul Is Right On "The War on Drugs" But I Still Won't Vote For Him
I heard Mr. Paul last night in one of the political
forums with Juan Williams of that villianous (chuckle)
Fox News.
As previously stated,
(http://robbemorris.blogspot.com/2007/09/ron-paul-why-i-cant-vote-for-him.ht
ml ), I won't vote for Ron Paul but he is right
on the war on drugs. It was a lost cause from the word
go. As is often also the case with liberalism, good intentions
don't always equal good results.
I'd like to see a different set of disincentives for drug
use. Imprisonment has too high a direct and indirect cost
to those in society that don't abuse drugs. Perhaps
taxing drugs (ala make them legal) or possibly alter the
punishment to include forced rehab and community service.
Perhaps loss of social security or medicare benefits if
convicted x number of times? Maybe a lost of right to vote?
A national registry of drug offenders?
Are their actions we could take that would make drug
abuse be viewed with the same disdain as a sexual predator?
Don't know...
I'm sure all sorts of creative punishments could be derived.
Will it stop drug use? For some yes for others no. I'm not
sure that should be the mandate. Lowering the cost to society
for tolerating their drug use should be.
There is a case to be made for protecting society against
the "likely" actions of some drug users while under the
influence. It is similar in some ways to that Tom Cruise
movie called Minority Report. At the end of the day, do
we criminalize the behavior or the cause of the criminal
behavior. Criminalizing both hasn't been terribly successful
to date.
I've often wondered about the geo political affects of
reduced cost and risk for producing these types of drugs. One
could assume fewer revenues to groups and governments
unfriendly to capitalist societies. Poppy crops in
Afghanistan come to mind. Those farmers don't harm me.
One word of advice to Mr. Paul. He comes across as
angry and bitter every time I see him. I know he is
passionate but it doesn't translate into calm and confidence
in his ability to solve problems or at least get things
going in the right direction. Newt Gingrich is a good
example to follow in this area.
14 Comments:
Are you comparing someone who smokes a naturally growing plant that's never killed anyone in history to a sex offender? Hello? Are you serious? You nor anyone on this Earth has a right to force anyone into rehab or even tell them what they can or cannot consume.
By Brisk, at 9:03 AM
Newt is not good for anything. He's a Tofflerian socialist.
By Webmaster, at 9:11 AM
Hmm, need to read a little closer to get the context of my remark about sex offenders. I was not comparing the two. I used it as a reference to the level of "disdain" as a means to discourage its use.
If the consumption of a substance affects society in a negative way, yes I think we can create laws that discourage the consumption.
The direct medical costs, the indirect societal costs coming from affects on families, behavior, and various other elements prevent drug use from being totally isolated as an individual freedom. Only when and if you could totally insulate society from that cost could your argument hold water.
And to your underlying point, there is an argument for different punishments or consequences for different drugs. Each drug has its own affects on the items I discussed.
By Robbe Morris, at 9:13 AM
Can you, in your own words, not someone else's, explain what a Tofflerian socialist is.
And, what is your preferred alternative?
By Robbe Morris, at 9:19 AM
Ron Paul is frustrated because he is watching this country go down the drain. he comes across to me, as someone with intelligence far beyond the other candidates. he has honest, straight-forward answers for every question. he does not dodge, pander, or compromise the constitution like the others. i applaud him. it takes serious guts to stand up there and speak the truth.
By JL, at 11:03 AM
Ron Paul is frustrated because he is watching this country go down the drain. he comes across to me, as someone with intelligence far beyond the other candidates. he has honest, straight-forward answers for every question. he does not dodge, pander, or compromise the constitution like the others. i applaud him. it takes serious guts to stand up there and speak the truth.
By JL, at 11:04 AM
Actually, Ron Paul is right on everything and you still won't vote for him. There are none so blind as those who will not see.
Any American who votes for a pro-war candidate should be required by law to enlist in the armed forces and immediately shipped off to Iraq for a two+ year stint in a combat role. Or be forced to send their first born or closest loved one. All appeals for deferments are disallowed.
By Pedregal, at 11:06 AM
Now, that's true. I don't recall ever hearing him not give a straight answer.
By Robbe Morris, at 11:07 AM
Actually, Ron Paul is right on everything and you still won't vote for him. There are none so blind as those who will not see.
Any American who votes for a pro-war candidate should be required by law to enlist in the armed forces and immediately shipped off to Iraq for a two+ year stint in a combat role. Or be forced to send their first born or closest loved one. All appeals for deferments are disallowed.
By DesertRat, at 11:08 AM
I was denied entry into the U.S. Navy and Air Force in 1988. So, I can't go myself and you assume that I don't have close loved ones in Iraq and Afghanistan.
By Robbe Morris, at 11:12 AM
Please read the following if you are pro war. perhaps you'll change your mind:
http://tinyurl.com/yuxyje
By DesertRat, at 11:16 AM
It will take more than some diatribe to change my opinion on what we are doing. That link has no facts just opinions. It makes assumptions about the intentions of the U.S. government that I believe are false.
There is good and evil in this world. Freedom's survival depends on ensuring that evil is always weaker.
By Robbe Morris, at 11:23 AM
conservatism = conservation of liberty.
The war on drugs undermines the indivuals freedom to decide for his or herself what they want to put into their bodies. Its essentially an attack on big government, less about promoting unhealthy behavior.
By DINKs, at 11:46 AM
Robbe,
Your pro-war stance makes you a neo conservative. They've hijacked the GOP.
By Anonymous, at 4:07 AM
Post a Comment
<< Home