I just stumbled on this story and am really impressed. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/11/2 … 09102.html
The story is about Ron Paul's stance that the fed should take a hands off approach to medical marijuana, that it should be down to the states. My only worry is that Obama campaigned with the same opinion yet he has been doing the opposite to what he claimed when campaigning. These politicians seem willing to say whatever they think we want to hear and are happy to then do the complete opposite
- "I think the federal war on drugs is a total failure," said Paul to hearty applause from the audience.
"The drug war is out of control," he added. "I fear the drug war, because it undermines our civil liberties, it magnifies our problems on the borders -- we spent like over the last 40 years a trillion dollars on this war and, believe me, the kids can still get the drugs. It just hasn't worked."
Ron Paul is one of very few politicians I'd actually trust to follow up on comments like that... or at least try to. The for-profit prison industry is pretty entrenched at this point.
"The for-profit prison industry is pretty entrenched at this point."
Very true. But it's not only the "for profit" prison industry. The unions that represent employees in public prisons and the prison bureaucrats have nearly as malign an influence on public policy as the for profit prisons. This is especially true in California from what I've read.
Obama's a liar. He isn't legalizing jack-$**t, and we were supposed to be out of Iraq 3 years ago; and now that we're leaving, there's still going to be 15k troops there.
Ron Paul has been saying this - and acting upon it - for 30 years.
You want Freedom? Ron Paul is the only man up there demanding it.
The Drug War is doing nothing more than sending non-violent offenders of a tyrannical law in jail, and making it impossible for Latin governments to provide safety and freedom. Marijuana is the cash cow of these drug cartels (read: drug companies who have no option but to fight with police to operate).
Obama gave the right far too much compromise.
I believe a second term Obama will be far more to the left and take harder stances on issues.
He's Bush on steroids, wake up.
And here I am thinking he's bushes brother from another mother!
I definitely don't agree with all of Ron Pauls political views but am I likely to ever agree on every view anyone has, especially a politician? Not likely! The one thing I can say is that its better to know someone has a different view to me, then to have them saying whatever it is they think I want to hear, only to find out they were lying through their teeth (can't think of any examples there! NOT!).
I hope if he runs it's on an independent ticket, I think it would be easier for people from both parties to get behind him if he does. Not to mention creating a first, first third party president. Might help shake up the two party bickering that does more to damage the country their either party on their own.
BTW, I remember you have been talking about Ron Paul for some time now, it is nice to learn more and more about the man, you might just be on with a winner in him. If he really does have a pair, and a spine, he might just be able to do a little something to get that whole hope and change thing actually started. Wouldn't that be nice?
He's going to try to win the Republican ticket, and there are numerous sites out there for "Blue Republicans" who realize that the rest of the Republican field is just BS.
http://www.cmi-gold-silver.com/blog/dem … l-in-2012/
Democrats who DON'T have their fingers in their ears are waking up to the fact that Obama hasn't delivered any of his promises and that he's just a cooler looking version of Bush. They're beginning to notice that Ron Paul's beliefs are very similar to theirs on many (not all) of their strongest beliefs --- AND that he has a 30+ year track record defending those beliefs.
IN all honesty, I think he'll win numerous primaries, but ultimately Romney is going to get the nomination. If Romney doesn't pick Paul as VP, then the Republicans are DEFINITELY going to lose against Obama AND I think Paul will run a third party campaign.
The third party that he chooses to run with will definitely get the necessary 3% voter requirement for federal funding, and the US will finally have a third party.
However, no one will want to give Paul credit, and they'll still just call him kooky, and then proceed to claim that Obama created the third party wtih his left-over swagger.
Just a few predictions on my part, though.
If drugs were legal, there'd be no crime associated with them. Think about all the people in prisons and jails who are serving time for pot-related crimes. What a waste.
I totally agree. It is so dumb to arrest people for pot. Imagine the money we could get from taxing it?
Who is this we?! If someone sells pot, and someone else buys it, why should I assume that I own any part of that transaction? I'm not entitled to their money, even if we call it a tax.
Don't tax weed. It doesn't need to be taxed.
I just sorta wanted to point out, weed doesn't need to be smoked either.
If I am going to be taxed I would rather it be on things I don't need, like weed, instead of on things I do need like food and housing and clothing.
I know you are not supportive of just about any tax and on that we do differ. I don't mind being taxed for things like hospitals and fire engines, its the politicians lining their pockets that I object to, not the idea of contributing to society financially.
Lord knows I'm an anarchist, but I'll settle for the Constitution. We can agree on that.
That is a fine start!
I think my reason for not agreeing on issues of taxes is because I don't think I would be here or alive if not for social programs. The foster home I lived in was state funded, tax payers money. I got help getting into work later, through two different city run employment programs for young people. The city paid my wages in exchange that my employer should give me on the job training (not quite like an apprenticeship as no permanent long term job was on offer, this was simply for experience to put on a resume), this would also have been tax dollars in action. I was deeply depressed and suicidal before this and was in inpatient care for about 3 years, all paid for by the tax payer. My depression was a result of an abusive childhood and while the state program that eventually got me out of that home was tax funded (I will say that it was still a very corrupt program and I was only taken out of the home when my Dad run out of money for the lawyers, and his/our lawyer was a nun! if you can believe it!). I have a lot to be grateful to tax payers for and I am honored to be one now, to be giving back. How would being against taxes now that I pay them be showing gratitude? I just can't make it jell. I am happy to pay reasonable taxes, it's the defrauding taxpayers that I abhor.
The important thing to remember is that quite a bit of things would still be paid for if private investors didn't have to compete with the government for loans and spending.
Obviously there's no way to know the exact details, but when T-Bills are considered a safe investment, and a huge chunk of investors flock towards them, other sectors of investment that would be more profitable but for government suffer.
Ah here is the rub. Why the heck does the gov have to take loans out when it collects so much from taxes?!?! Cut the wasteful spending (not the important social services, just the fraud and bureaucracy that stops social services from doing their jobs in the first place) and our taxes should more then cover the social programs and keep the country in the black. Borrowing money should be considered almost shameful, something you do only after intense consideration and only because it's the only option. Honestly I as an individual shouldn't be in a position where I have to borrow money in order to have 'good credit'. Why should I have to borrow money I know I cannot reasonably pay back without putting myself in the way of potential hardship just because everyone else does it? I have a heck of a time buying anything where they do credit checks, even tho I am showing my reliability by actually using my own money to buy not someone else's. OK, rant over LOL
I have seen the statistics.....across the nation, around 500,000 less people would be incarcerated...and far less having to show up to court for minor possession beefs.
Legalizing, however, would definitely cut into the profits of groups of criminals, politicians, and law enforcement/legal justice system civil servants...
But the companies using prison labor will run short on slaves!
Interesting article. Medical marijuana is a completely different topic than casual and social smoking. I agree that pot should be legalized and regulated, but his comment about the war on drugs? I'm confused.
Is he suggesting to simply allow the importation of cocaine, heroine and any other substance? Let the FDA regulate its use? So, out of curiosity, is there an up side to allowing someone to get hooked on drugs like heroine? It seems to me that stopping the war on drugs will just force us to spend tax dollars elsewhere.
If they were regulated, they could be taxed.
Overall, though, I don't think the opposition to our so-called War on Drugs is so much people thinking there's an upside to drug addiction as people wanting an end to the social justice nightmare that has resulted from our misguided drug policies. The drug wars have utterly destroyed our inner cities and especially the African American population, which is substantially less likely than whites to use drugs but substantially more likely to be incarcerated for drug-related offenses. They've also destroyed several other countries, including Mexico (ex-prez Vincente Fox has been reduced to openly begging us to stop the War on Drugs so his people will stop dying horribly), Columbia, and Afghanistan.
I don't follow drug policy closely enough to have a strong opinion about what a rational approach would look like, but the current system is clearly not it.
I'm confused. Are you saying it was the war on drugs that slaughters innocents who won't agree to be mules and co conspirators; or is the drug lord's henchmen who do it?
Are you saying that the person that buys the drugs on the street is more guilty than those who stand on the corner selling it?
I agree, there are casualties and injustices. But, how anyone blames the problems in the inner city on the fact that drugs are illegal is a little over my head.I would love to hear how legalizing drugs would alleviate the suffering. I would also love to fully understand how we are responsible for the nature of the lawlessness in Mexico.
Does anyone, or any government, take responsibility for its actions anymore? Or is America and its policies the root of all that is evil in the world.
The US has the highest rate of illegal drug use in the world, and much like Prohibition in the 20's, making drugs illegal has only increased their value, which in turn encourages criminal elements both in the US and Mexico to fight for control of the cash cow, resulting in violence against other drug dealers and cartels, policemen and law enforcement officials, and just about anyone else who gets stuck in the crossfire.
Toss in NATO, which allowed the US to dump cheap, subsidized US corn into Mexican markets in the 90's, putting many farmers out of business, and you have thousands of desperate people for the Mexican cartels to take advantage of.
Toss in discriminatory enforcement in the US and you have millions of black men (in particular) being ripped from their families and jailed, often for simple possession. As you probably know, the US has the highest incarceration rate in the world, much of that the result of drug charges.
Well, I agree the incarceration rate is ridiculous. I don't think anyone should waste time and taxpayer dollars behind bars unless their crime is such that they pose a continuing risk to society. But, there are quite a few reasons I see that have contributed to the number of people being incarcerated.
I realize that the war on drugs has exacerbated the problem on some fronts. However, legalization of addictive substances is not something I would ever support. I am loosely related to a heroine addict. He isn't on it now, but the only thing that keeps him off of it is his prescription of methadone. His addiction has made him a non productive member of society and he will, most likely, never change. Legalization implies acceptance and we should never, as a society, send that type of message when it comes to drugs that ruin a person's life and endanger a community.
Hi Emile, I thought I would chime in again on this issue because it is one I feel passionately about. My real mom was a meth head, she lost all of her kids because of it, and it left her permanently mentally ill. A childhood rife with abuse did go some way to driving her to drug abuse. She was many things, a victim of childhood abuse, a meth head, a bad mother but she was never a criminal. I hate that she became addicted to meth, I sometimes wonder what would have been if she had never touched the stuff. I probably wouldn't have been born to be honest (she had lots of kids, all of whom were taken from her). The drugs war was in full swing when I was born, it didn't protect me from having a meth head mom. I was taken from her eventually tho. I was adopted but then my dad found out and nullified the adoption and I went to live with him. My step mom was an alcohol abuser. She beat me when sober and made me take care of her when drunk (I sorta prefered her drunk, she couldn't hit me, hard anyway, mostly would miss when drunk LOL). I was directly harmed as a child by both. I wouldn't have meth illegal any more then I would alcohol. At the end of the day both are dangerous drugs that can lead to violence and can destroy homes. Both also encourage criminals to exploit the market when made illegal. If peaceful people cannot sell a drug, violent criminals will. If people in America could grow their own marijuana then we wouldn't need Mexico do grow it for us (specifically, the drug cartels). The drugs war has been going for longer then I have been alive and it is a total failure. It is a failure because governments cannot legislate morality. People will always want things that 'make them feel better' and will go to violent criminals to get what they want if they cannot go to reputable people for what they want. The drugs war has actually made the market for illegal drugs much bigger then it ever was before. We have thousands of years of history where mankind has smoked pot, eaten strange mushrooms that make you think your talking with gods, at one point drinking beer was safer then water (water could give you all sorts of nasty diseases, like cholera), smoking peyote and opium have been around for thousands of years. Society and mankind as a whole managed to survive with all that going on. Suddenly it's made illegal and we have drug cartels who finance human trafficking and worse from their drug money, we have new fancy man made drugs that are just as dangerous as you can get, this all happened because of the prohibition on drugs. If you don't want to do drugs, don't. Your body will thank you for it, probably with a longer life. Just because something isn't illegal doesn't mean you can't choose the healthier option. When your views and values are pushed on those who do not want them and refuse to accept them you have limited that persons liberty to choose self destruction, and they will not accept that limitation. Some will become criminals to protect their illicit liberties. I cannot say as I want to see meth for sale in the shops (even a specially licensed one) but what I want is of no consequence to anyone but me. If it was legal and for sale in the shops doesn't mean I have to buy the stuff. It wouldn't stop me from wanting to help make sure people know what the dangers are before they try the stuff. What it would do is make sure that it's not being sold by violent criminals in my local parks and street corners to who ever has the money to buy. I hate that there is a market for the stuff but there is and there is nothing anyone can do to change that now that the stuff has been made (as a bi-product of the war on drugs). So long as there is a market someone will provide the market with the goods, who do we want doing that job? Criminals or legitimate people (be they doctors or shop owners)? I am sick of it being done by criminals myself.
It's only illegal drug use if it's illegal!
Ron Paul's view is basically this:
"Hey, is the reason you DON'T do drugs because they are illegal? Or is it simply that you know better? Obviously the latter. So, if you REALLY want to do drugs, then go ahead. Just don't come looking for a bail out when you can't get off your crack shakes... oh, and crack probably wouldn't be such an epidemic if people could just freely snort coke."
His policy is *all conservatives and liberals collectively gasp in horror* PERSONAL RESPONSIBILITY!!!
Ron Paul has been the champion of state rights for decades as well as personal freedom to choose for one's self. All you have to do is look at his very prestine voting record as proof that he does what he says. He has followed through with everything he has ever said I believe him 100% when he says that is what he would do as president. Just go and look him up and see for yourself what he is all about, then decide for yourself if he would follow through. He is far from your average "career politician".
Ron Paul has a scary record of racism. In my opinion, racism is the opposite of libertarianism, which might make Ron Paul a 30 year fraud. I just can't get past his racist background - sorry.
This man is not the saint you think he is.
Can you POINT to the racist comment he made? (Psst, those newsletters weren't written by him. You can compare the style and prose of the newsletters to any of the article or books he's written)
Because I can point to hundreds of anti-racist claims he's made!
Look at that! Here's one right now that is consistent with his 30 year record!
Oh, and look at this one - comparing MLK's statements to Ron Paul's! They're pretty similar, and Paul hasn't changed his message in decades! (this video is a bit cheesy, but accurate nonetheless)
Hello Evan. I hope you enjoyed your Thanksgiving Day.
Ron Paul has made many racist comments. Shall I share them with you?
On the day Ron Paul announced he was running for the office of President of the United States for the third time, Chris Mathews asked him if he would have voted against the Civil Right Act in 1964. He replied, "Yeah, but I wouldn't vote against getting rid of the Jim Crow laws." He said he would oppose the law because it imposed unfair rules on private businesses. Essentially, they should be free to discriminate if they wish, Paul explained. Clearly, he not only favors businesses abusing citizen's freedoms but also favors anti-nullification Federal legislation as being superior to state drafted Jim Crow laws. (1)
You mentioned Ron Paul's newsletters first because you know they contain countless examples of racism that will never go away.
Following the Watts riots in 1992, one said, "Order was only restored in L.A. when it came time for the blacks to pick up their welfare checks three days after rioting began." It also denounced "the media" for believing that "America's number one need is an unlimited white checking account for underclass blacks." An October 1992 Paul Newsletter advised: "I've urged everyone in my family to know how to use a gun in self defense. For the animals are coming." In June 1991, a Ron Paul newsletter entry on racial disturbances in Washington, DC's Adams Morgan neighborhood was titled, "Animals Take Over the D.C. Zoo."
What do candidate Ron Paul's supporters say about years and years of racist hatred printed in newsletters bearing his name? They say what Ron Paul's handlers tell them to say. Like…
Again, proof of an old adage around since 1546: "There are none so blind as those who will not see. The most deluded people are those who choose to ignore what they already know." Those who support this lame excuse refuse to admit that the author of the actual words is not the point! CBS News replied to this delusional thinking in this way: "We're not children here, after all. It's plain that [Ron] Paul knew what was being published in his newsletters. It's plain that he was familiar with the well-developed strategy that inspired the early-90s turn to racist demagoguery. It's plain that he knew it was a key part of his fundraising appeal. Paul can weasel all he wants, but it's plain that he endorsed a strategy of overt appeals to racist sentiment in order to build support for his political career. If he's given all that up since then, it's only because he no longer needs it." (2)On your scale of justice, Evan, just how many anti-racist claims from his camp makes up for "the animals are coming?"
Moreover, the ultimate misstatement is this one…
It is no wonder you attacked the issue of years and years of racist newsletters before anyone else even mentioned it. It is for the voters to decide if this politician is a liar, a hypocrite, or a whore who sold himself and his name to racist fear mongers to raise money for his campaigns.
I'm still suffering from being overly grateful at our family's Thanksgiving dinner yesterday. It will take at least a week for my digestive system and the numbers on the scale to recover. I hope you are doing better than I am.
(1) http://www.tnr.com/blog/jonathan-chait/ … uls-racism
(2) http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2008/01/ … 1817.shtml
The first statement isn't racist - it's very liberty minded. People have a right to discriminate.
You do this everyday. Are you married? Are you heterosexual? Do you have friends? Do you have people "you just can't stand"?
Liberty is freedom. And that also means the freedom to be a jerk.
And to go further, our Constitution -- LOL, I know you hate it when I do things like "quote the constitution" -- unfortunately does not make the claim that desegregation/segregation is a federal issue. Nor does it even make EDUCATION a federal issue.
Sorry, but both libertarians AND "people who have read the Constitution" have to agree with me.
The newsletters clearly weren't written by Paul. However it is unfortunate that they were written with his name on the newsletter.
... And as for my "ultimate misstatement" of all time in bringing up the Newsletters...
Wow, really? Proactively bringing up a subject that is core to the claim of the opposition is a "misstatement"?
Dude, really? If a guy is on trial for manslaughter, and the defense attorney does his research and proclaims in court "My client was not in the Conservatory on the night of the crime", your claim is that the defendant is guilty because "who said anything about a Conservatory!?"
Weak argument, bro. Weak.
When one mentions Ron Paul being racist, they are the newsletters are the only racist remark that can somewhat honestly be labeled as his.
So, claiming that "I doth protest too much" is a nonsense argument.
This is LITERALLY your "ULTIMATE MISSTATEMENT" argument:
Simpsons Episode CABF03 "The Great Money Caper"
http://www.wtso.net/movie/353-1207_The_ … Caper.html
Lawyer: Will you tell the court your whereabouts at the time of the
Willie: I was alone in me Unabomber-style shack; I had nothing to do with
Lawyer: Carjacking?! Who said anything about a carjacking?
[galley and jury murmurs]
Willie: But, didn't you just say--?
Lawyer: *I'll* ask the questions here, Carjacker Willie!
Lawyer 2: Objection!
Judge: I'm going to allow it -- it characterizes the defendant as a
Bart: [quietly to Homer:] Dad, we've got to tell everyone the truth!
Homer: Let's see how this plays out.
After reading your conversation regarding racism around Ron Paul I went out and had a look for myself. Racism is something that worries me, it has done no favors for the country. I found this from the NAACP on what is a pretty liberal site, http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/ja … racist.htm
Interesting stuff, thought you might appreciate the link
I remember when they brought these "racist" allegations against Dr. Paul back in 2008. I believe CNN was the first to "find" these documents. Of course they also put in the article that it was very possible that anyone can put somebody else's name on paper and say that it was one specific person. I also found an article that gives both sides with some interesting comments by people below it. http://blogcritics.org/politics/article … ron-pauls/
Interesting. Thanks. I recall Rand Paul's dumb remarks about the Public Accommodations Act not long ago. The Libertarians aren't very well tuned in to the real world, and they are constantly painting themselves into a corner with their dogmatic anti-government pronouncements.
I'd like to discredit you on your insistence that libertarians don't live in the real world.
If I'm not mistaken, your Nobel Peace Prize winning Obama is on the verge of starting an all out 3rd war, and has yet to deliver one promise of change in regards to warfare. Even after the "withdrawal" from Iraq, there will still be 15,000 troops there.
Dream-ville, thy name is liberal.
I think the best comment (from the few I read) was this one:
"Racism is bombing, falsely imprisoning and torturing brown people.
Racism is drug laws that lock up non-violent offenders.
Ron Paul opposes these manifestations of racism in THE REAL WORLD. Who cares about some some newsletter?"
But separate public drinking fountains and rest rooms are okay? And "white's only" neighborhoods and real estate listings? There is no legitimate government role in making these un-American practices illegal? Get real Evan.
Does he actually support such segregation?
From what I can find it sounds like he isn't for segregation at all but isn't for the federal government having anything to do with it one way or the other. I am not sure how exactly that would work out because those who feel themselves discriminated against might well feel justified in revolting if their state or local government is allowing segregation. I just think that wanting the government out of peoples values is what he is getting at but since it's such an emotional and serious subject it can come across as racist and could harm how the public sees him.
I honestly don't know how anyone could tolerate segregation in their communities and think it would be one of the worst things a business or community could do. The way I am reading this issue is that Ron is simply against the fed making laws that dictate moral issues like racism. If we take another moral federal law like the prohibition of drugs it's easy to get behind but when the moral issue is racism it is hard to get behind because of the serious damage racism can have on everyone involved. Can we trust our local communities and businesses to not engage in harmful racism? On that issue I just cannot say but fear we cannot.
I don't believe he's a supporter of the Civil Rights Act, the Public Accommodations Act and other civil rights legislation. I'm not saying he supports segregation or discrimination. But he's opposed to federal government interference with property rights in the name of civil rights. His son, Rand Paul explicitly said a restaurant owner should be able to serve or refuse service to whomever he chooses.
Ron Paul does NOT support segregation.
However, freedom DOES mean that you - as an individual - have the right to be a racist jerk. And this ALSO entails that if the restaurant is privately owned (a company, a diner, etc) then the owner CAN establish segregation.
This is Ron Paul's stance. If you listen to people who can't fathom "freedom means being free", then you'll just hear "Ron Paul is a racist".
If you want to hear more about specific issues or whatnot regarding Ron Paul, post me - I know them inside and out.
How ya doin’ Evan?
I think I understand what you are saying. However, please answer two questions for me and provide some details.
Does an individual’s freedom have any limits? If so, what are those limits?
I appreciate your helping me to understand this better.
Thanks, Quill. Libertarians' dogma leads them into dark corners.
If you believe Ron Paul has even a snowball's chance in Hell of ever becoming President, please share whatever you're smoking.
It's exactly that kind of thinking that makes most people believe they have only two choices. That's why I really hope within the next couple of years a solid third party will arise. Because when you look at both the dems and reps, there really is no difference at all.
Why would you think Ron Paul is not telling the truth?
He's one of the few elected officials that does what he says he is going to do.
Look at his voting record - he's very consistent, votes against unauthorized wars, increasing budget deficits.
This is why so many people like the guy.
Look at Obama, he sways with the wind, does whatever he can to stay in power, compromises, has nor principles that he sticks to.
Ron Paul varies not. Does what he says, has principles and speaks a lot of truth.
Have a great weekend.
Hi Claptona. It is good to see so many engaged in the political process. There should be more.
I can see there is much in candidate Ron Paul that you admire. Nevertheless, I find your criticism of President Obama quite curious. In a pluralistic democracy, compromise is a virtue and not a failing. As the leader of a free, multi-cultural society containing competing ideologies, the President SHOULD display flexibility, determination, compromise, and the ability to yield on principles at a time of crisis. If all of the super committee members had had these traits, they would have achieved their assigned task. The characteristics you attribute to President Obama are the ones most needed by a leader of the free world. A leader without these skills is a tyrant. The inability to share ideas, to bridge gaps in ideology, to respect and to find common ground with adversaries were the major failures of the previous administration.
Until the GOP appoints its standard bearer, I don’t need to make a choice for the office. The next year should be very interesting.
Have a marvelous day, Claptona.
That's what they all said leading up to WWII, and giving Russia 1/2 of Europe.
I guess that proves compromise is good.
Have a great weekend.
Thanks, Claptona, for your prompt response in which you vaguely link compromise to things “they all” said prior to WWII. Do you care to share with us who said what?
I commented on personal traits that I consider valuable to a President leading a diverse society that respects pluralism and you comment on pre-WWII alliances in Europe. However, I don’t see President Obama carving up Europe. Do you?
Thanks for contributing to the conversation. I am planning a great weekend and I hope you are too.
Well, 40 years later, it worked out okay in the end.
And, let me guess, you will vote for him? If it is the case what does make you?
..i haven't read the other posts but... it's not surprising considering he's actually part of the Libertarian party and not the GOP... he may run on the right but it's only because there's no serious thought by average voters to elect Libertarians. That's why he's continually left out of debates because he's not actually 'one of the boys'. - Libertarians usually follow ' Austrian style' economics and that's why they fit w. the right but on strictly social issues they seem left leaning... here's a good link to see where you fit politically...http://www.nolanchart.com/faq/faq8.php...it's just a cool graph explaining libertarian perspective and tells how you score politically and to what party you would lean toward
The reason I favor drug legalization is because that would open up the possibility of pharmaceutical companies researching less addictive and less harmful alternatives.
Obviously we have large numbers of unhappy people who need to escape through substance abuse. I'd rather help them be happy in the least harmful way possible than spend all this money fighting it. I'd rather they could buy inexpensive drugs than have them rob my house to get money for heroin.
I have relatives who are abusers. It has ruined their lives and their families and cost me a pretty penny too. The cost to society at large is even higher. There HAS to be a better way.
If they were legal, the cost would be less - monetarily, emotionally, and in many other ways as well.
I'm curious if anyone can claim that they don't have someone important in their life who is not an abuser. Lord knows I can't.
I don't think my hubby has ever had anyone important in his life with drug abuse problems. For him anyway, it's a case of knowing someone who knows someone who had problems. He does have a bad back and worries about developing a problem himself, with the pills they give him. He takes them far far less then the doctor tells him to and only takes his pain pills when he can no longer bare it. He will often try having a light joint (rolled with these Ginseng tobacco free ciggies) and when I say light, I mean light! He uses a pepper grinder to eke out small amounts to just lightly powder the paper before adding the ginseng stuff. I honestly don't see how it helps at such small amounts but if it helps then I am happy and I reckon his liver will thank him for not pumping harsh drugs through his system all the time. Usually we just try to go rock climbing since the way it streches his back out seems to make real improvements to how much pain he gets in the first place. It seems that by pulling himself up a rock climbing wall takes some of the pressure off the vertebra that has slipped and with the way you have to move your body it keeps him more flexible which is also going to help.
How old are you to rely on people like me or any other to give you a sincere portrait of who Ron Paul is? Don't you have the same source of information than the majority of us? Trust your judgement! If he has always been consistent in his thoughts and approaches, you may consider him trustworthy, if he changes opinions according to what the majority wants to hear, here is a red flag... The decision is yours.
Sure, he's serious. Libertarians generally feel that government should not be dictating personal morality, including the choice to use drugs recreationally. (That's not to say that they feel that that choice is a good one.)
by SparklingJewel6 years ago
this guy is giving a perspective that needs to be heard Specifically, on all the metrics that a year ago everyone accepted as useful indicators of political standing, Ron Paul is not just a front-runner but a strong...
by steveamy5 years ago
Is Ron Paul's "mission" hurting the Republican Party ....?
by Simon Cook5 years ago
Ron Paul will be 77 if he wins the Presedential Election (assuming he gets the Republican's nod) - will this be an issue? The job is a very difficult one for a young man in his prime, what will it do to Ron Paul?I'm not...
by 910chris5 years ago
Over the last couple of days a lot of media attention has gone towards a conspiracy theory involving Ron Paul and Mitt Romney banding together. They seem to be pushing it pretty hard which in my mind means that...
by Moderndayslave5 years ago
Cris Wallace of faux news stating ,If Ron Paul wins Iowa caucus " It doesn't count" What? If it doesn't count, why do they have them at all? Can anyone explain this?http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OeF4sDjE...
by Jason Menayan5 years ago
It strikes me that there are 2 distinct types of people voting in the Republican primaries and caucuses: partisans and libertarians.The partisans are about 80%; they might have their favorite candidate, but in the end,...
Copyright © 2017 HubPages Inc. and respective owners.
Other product and company names shown may be trademarks of their respective owners.
HubPages® is a registered Service Mark of HubPages, Inc.
HubPages and Hubbers (authors) may earn revenue on this page based on affiliate relationships and advertisements with partners including Amazon, Google, and others.