Ron Paul jokes: "I don't want to use heroin" so I need drug laws

[DavisK4high247]

Chris is well-acquainted with Sakeralina's passion for thoroughly stepped upon cocaine and warmish domestic light beer.

LoL...this post went crazy, finally something funny I see..lol,,and I think true as well.

 

[phr]

But he's not going to take away anybody's college money unless the House & senate pass him a bill to sign which does so.

So maybe if you want legalization, but don't want conservative values from an administration, you should vote paul, then vote liberal democrat for senator/representative?

What makes you think that they'll vote for legalization?

As sad as it is, I think the only way we'll get rid of our fucked up drug laws is if most of the other countries do so first. A difficult thing to do since we throw money at them, amongst other things, just so they don't do that.

 

[Pander Bear]

LoL...this post went crazy, finally something funny I see..lol,,and I think true as well.

The secret is not reading what everybody else posted.

 

[severely etarded]

What makes you think that they'll vote for legalization?

As sad as it is, I think the only way we'll get rid of our fucked up drug laws is if most of the other countries do so first. A difficult thing to do since we throw money at them, amongst other things, just so they don't do that.

Paul is pretty consistent with voting on his values. I am just suggesting that in order to balance out the far right ones any liberal people here disagree with, it would be wise to vote for liberals in the House & Senate. Although I think the whole "liberal" / "conservative" tags are pretty rhetorical. And the president can't sign a bill that hasn't been approved by congress... So if the majority in congress doesn't want to legalize drugs, a president alone can't really do anything anyway

Mexico is leading the way in legalization at the moment. They almost have to because of the drug-cartel-related problems they are having.

 

[cybervisionx]

He wants to basically demolish the U.S.'s centralized federal government, and radically alter the financial system in an untested and potentially devastating way. Additionally, he wants to deregulate the market, INCLUDING THE FINANCIAL MARKET (so, without a strong centralized federal government that gives citizens the ability to stand up against international corporations, we will ultimately be completely owned by them, it is madness). Further, he wants to eliminate all forms of social services, including: medicare, social security, and welfare. He is also an isolationist, therefore, he would leave the worlds' markets open to China and Russia to control, while we bury our heads in the sand and get fucked in the ass.

In other words, he wants to destroy the platform by which the common man can wield his power: "big government."

He wants to restore the financial system to the way it was before 1913 when the Federal Reserve took hold of our nations money supply/value. That is not untested. He is against NAFTA, but for free trade. The current strong centralized federal government works for the major corporations. The Federal Reserve is a private bank by the way. It is a major corporation, and it controls the value of the money in your pocket. I don't know where you live, but in my neck of the woods prices of everything are going up thanks to intentional dollar devaluation.

Further more, he wants to cut US aid to almost every country in the middle east. We need not meddle in their affairs. They didn't help/hurt us in times of unrest, why the hell are we stirring things up for them?

 

[SpiralOut]

Because his other policies are so absolutely atrocious that the trade off wouldnt be worth it. Its like having a pain in your leg, so the doctors like, well, well amputate your leg then, that way you wont have pain anymore! you just wont have a leg! yea, theres one very good result-your pain goes away, but a whole shitload of very bad results that really outweigh any good that would come of it.

There would be one "pro" of having RP in charge, if he even stuck to the shit he said, which would be legalization (supposedly), but that would be the ONLY good thing, and there would be so many horrible "cons" that it would completely cancel out the good. The country would go to absolute shit.


Im somebody whose life been changed forever by the drug war. I got multiple felony arrests and convictions. Ima have trouble for a long time gettin a job becuz of those. I been turned down from so many jobs becuz of it. It makes a huge difference in my ability to work especially now with even overqualified, never-even-had-a-parking-ticket people not bein able to find work. Im still on probation now for some shit that happened years ago. Ive paid thousands of dollars in fines and still owe more. Its had a huge undeniable effect on the course of my life. Not just me, but my family and friends, people I know, I seen the horrible effects of prohibition.

So it should hold some weight when I say that even knowing from personal experience of havin my life almost ruined by the consequences of prohibition, I still would not want legalization if it came at the cost of havin this man as the president. That should tell you somethin, becuz somebody like me has everything to gain from ending drug prohibition. But the cost is too high. I would rather keep drugs illegal than have our country tore up by RP. Legalization is somethin I would love to see, one of my life long wishes but not if it gotta happen by putting that man in charge.

Just becuz this forum is full of people whose lives would be affected by ending prohibition dont mean that is the only issue that is important to us.

The hilarious part about this entire argument? That you folks SO worried about your medicare and the government basically holding your hand your entire life and taking care of you from cradle to the grave are going to lose all that shit anyway.

We can't continue to pay for entitlement programs like SS, Medicare, Medicaid, or the ridiculous pension plans of all the people on the government dole. $12-13 TRILLION in debt already. The value of the dollar has been taking a huge hit. All the Fed can do is print more money, which further drives down the power of the dollar.

Either a guy like Ron Paul comes in and cleans house or we go down with the ship. You folks are just rearranging deck chairs on the Titanic.

Of course, this is why the current status quo of corrupt politicians gets elected. Because people don't want to be held accountable for their own decisions, lives, etc. They want the government to take care of everything. The wildly inefficient, slow, corrupt government is supposed to lead us to the promised land. Right. And then you woke up.

Seriously, when did drug users get to be so intellectually lazy? Doing drugs is the ultimate expression of individualism and freedom, yet you then want to buy into big government, Big Brother bullshit? Really?

Fucks sake. Just look at the Drug War for evidence of how the government handles perceived problems. Drug enforcement is not an insular issue cut off from the rest of how the world works. It's a microcosm of how the government does business. Which is very badly.

Wake up. Live for yourselves. Quit relying on Uncle Sam to save you. All he's going to do is make sure we're all dead broke and incapable of doing anything for ourselves.

 

[Apostacious]

He wants to restore the financial system to the way it was before 1913 when the Federal Reserve took hold of our nations money supply/value. That is not untested.

Given the current scope and function of today's economy, it most certainly is untested. Changing to a resource-backed currency (gold-standard) would cause deflation to occur quite often, due to contractions in the amount of gold that is excavated. The U.S. had more recessions and bank panics when gold was used as a store of value than it did since it transitioned over to a fiat-currency. Now, recessions are more or less brought upon by financial bubbles, oil prices, and structural unemployment.

He is against NAFTA, but for free trade. The current strong centralized federal government works for the major corporations.

Please explain how corporations wouldn't benefit from the elimination/reduction of the federal government. The way I see it, is that it is the federal government that protects unions, enforces universal safety standards and product quality standards, and ensures that labor laws are fair. With a collection of states having their own individual laws, without a federal law that ensures limits are put upon state laws, it seems to me that corporations would simply need to focus their lobbying efforts at the state level, and there may exist more room for the abuse of labor to occur.

The Federal Reserve is a private bank by the way. It is a major corporation, and it controls the value of the money in your pocket. I don't know where you live, but in my neck of the woods prices of everything are going up thanks to intentional dollar devaluation.

Prices are going up for a lot of reasons. Oil is the chief reason everything is going up in price. With a greater price paid at the pump, transportation of goods will cost more, and the manufacturing of goods will cost more. As a result, everything goes up in value. At the moment, inflation for 2011 is under 2%, which is well within the normal 2-4% annual inflation rate. Additionally, inflation is good for those of us that are in debt, because as your pay rate increases to compensate for inflation, your debts decrease in value.

So, you think that inflation is bad today? Perhaps you should have been around before 1971, when the value of the USD was based on gold, and the value of the dollar would fluctuate based on the amount of gold excavated. Also, notice that there has been NO deflation since the abandonment of the gold standard. Deflation is wealth destruction, and for people that are in debt, it is DEVASTATING. Deflation is devastating to those in debt, because the amount that they get paid decreases (raises/pay increases only exist because of inflation) while the value of their debts increase. Here is a graph of the history of inflation/deflation in the U.S., which should provide ample proof for my arguments in this post so far.

Further more, he wants to cut US aid to almost every country in the middle east. We need not meddle in their affairs. They didn't help/hurt us in times of unrest, why the hell are we stirring things up for them?

Actually, speaking from a strictly economic standpoint, we still do need their help, particularly from OPEC nations. Giving them "aid" gives us a good deal for oil. But, aside from that, aid to middle eastern nations is an artifact from the Cold War. Once the U.S. withdraws from oil for energy dependence, I am sure we will taper our financial support of middle eastern nations.

 

[severely etarded]

The way I see it, is that it is the federal government that protects unions, enforces universal safety standards and product quality standards, and ensures that labor laws are fair. With a collection of states having their own individual laws, without a federal law that ensures limits are put upon state laws, it seems to me that corporations would simply need to focus their lobbying efforts at the state level, and there may exist more room for the abuse of labor to occur.

Why can't each state do a good job on it's own enforcing regulations on corporations? Why do they need a big nanny state to do it? That doesn't make any sense. Laws are laws, and still can be enforced at the state OR federal level.. I don't see why it's necessary to do things on a federal level that could just as easily be done at a state level.

That chart shows inflation today based on the US government estimate of 3%, which I thoroughly believe, according to the actual rise in cost of goods & services, is very realistically inaccurate.

 

[Apostacious]

Why can't each state do a good job on it's own enforcing regulations on corporations? Why do they need a big nanny state to do it? That doesn't make any sense. Laws are laws, and still can be enforced at the state OR federal level.. I don't see why it's necessary to do things on a federal level that could just as easily be done at a state level.

It provides a set of standards to exist universally throughout a nation. Therefore, corporations will not just pool most of their labor into the one state that has the most cost-effective labor laws.

That chart shows inflation today based on the US government estimate of 3%, which I thoroughly believe, according to the actual rise in cost of goods & services, is very realistically inaccurate.

What you believe means nothing to me, unless you actually prove something with evidence. The current explosion of gas prices isn't necessarily due to an increased cost of the CPI basket. It is because oil companies are gouging us due to speculation in the market.

edit:Additionally, maybe you missed my other piece of evidence on inflation (it was in the third paragraph down), maybe you should address that too? Then again.. if you're going to respond with a "gut feeling," please don't bother.

 

[severely etarded]

It provides a set of standards to exist universally throughout a nation. Therefore, corporations will not just pool most of their labor into the one state that has the most cost-effective labor laws.

Can't states make their own standards? What's the point of making those standards universal? Is their any reason that reasonable standards cannot be enforced at the state level of government?

Corporations already pool their labor as it is based on tax & wage differences as it is BTW. I don't see how it would be any different if states had the right to make competitive labor laws in order to make up for high wages or high taxes. After all, this is why the tenth ammendment was for...

And finally, it could bring many jobs back if states had control over their labor standards to compete with foreign labor markets.

What you believe means nothing to me, unless you actually prove something with evidence. The current explosion of gas prices isn't necessarily due to an increased cost of the CPI basket. It is because oil companies are gouging us due to speculation in the market.

I strongly believe basic necessities like food have gone up considerably more than 3% per year. Can't find anything on it, just my opinion for now.
Don't care what it means to you

edit:Additionally, maybe you missed my other piece of evidence on inflation (it was in the third paragraph down), maybe you should address that too?

Prices are going up for a lot of reasons. Oil is the chief reason everything is going up in price. With a greater price paid at the pump, transportation of goods will cost more, and the manufacturing of goods will cost more. As a result, everything goes up in value. At the moment, inflation for 2011 is under 2%, which is well within the normal 2-4% annual inflation rate. Additionally, inflation is good for those of us that are in debt, because as your pay rate increases to compensate for inflation, your debts decrease in value.

So, you think that inflation is bad today? Perhaps you should have been around before 1971, when the value of the USD was based on gold, and the value of the dollar would fluctuate based on the amount of gold excavated. Also, notice that there has been NO deflation since the abandonment of the gold standard. Deflation is wealth destruction, and for people that are in debt, it is DEVASTATING. Deflation is devastating to those in debt, because the amount that they get paid decreases (raises/pay increases only exist because of inflation) while the value of their debts increase. Here is a graph of the history of inflation/deflation in the U.S., which should provide ample proof for my arguments in this post so far.

That's cost push inflation. But what's going to happen when it combines with inflation from printing so much money? Hyperinflation.

Couldn't the value of the dollar be maintained steadily on the gold standard by simply increasing / decreasing the amount of gold per $ ?

 

[snafu]

I'm voting for Ron Paul

 

[23536]

if I could vote, I'd vote anti-prohibition.

legalization of drugs is the most important issue of our times. If I had a reliable, risk-free lifetime supply of heroin and cocaine, I'd be in heaven. Anybody remember heaven? It's the place with dope and coke and breakfast waitresses. That's all you ever need.

 

[AndroidsDreamofBTC]

Unlike Obama and all the others who only say what they need to say to get elected, Paul has a VERY solid track record of voting based on his ideals, i.e. what he believes to be "constitutional". He believes in sound money, state's rights and freedom from govt. interference in individual's lives...Not sure how that's crazy, clusterfucked or crackpot-ish exactly, but to each his own.

Beats the hell out of the lame 2-party bullshit we have now, where candidates only APPEAR to take different stands on the issues but really run shit exactly the same. But hey.

The American constitution isn't some sort of Bible type thing sent to by god to man. Times changes and you need to realize that.

I am also all for getting rid of drug laws, but I'd be pretty scared if I'd have to have a person like Ron Paul as president.

 

[SpiralOut]

I am also all for getting rid of drug laws, but I'd be pretty scared if I'd have to have a person like Ron Paul as president.

Why?

How is Ron Paul going to wreck the average, boring, American life if he's President?

By blowing up the banking cartel that runs this country and pulls the politicians' strings and steals from the working man?

By reducing the power and scope of the federal government and their institutions like the DEA, ATF, FBI, etc. and actually holding them accountable instead of letting them run wild locking up innocent people and ruining folks' lives?

By trying to fix this country's massive debt problems so, you know, we're not all living on the street in 20 years and actually can have some real economic growth?

How exactly is Ron Paul going to screw your life up that some puppeteer like Obama/Bush/etc. isn't already?

In fact, riddle me this. How has the standard fare of Democrat/Republican douchebags IMPROVED YOUR LIFE recently? Oh wait, that's right. You're in the Ukraine, wouldn't know what real freedom was if it punched you in the face, and need to stop commenting like you know wtf you're talking about.

 

[Apostacious]

Can't states make their own standards? What's the point of making those standards universal? Is their any reason that reasonable standards cannot be enforced at the state level of government?

The point of giving laws universal limits throughout a nation, is that there will be no states that will alter their laws to favor firms over workers. Without a limit set in place for labor laws, states can set their laws to how they see fit. Therefore, if enough firms pay off the right state legislators, they can get the laws they want enacted for themselves, at a much more meager price, compared to what would be necessary at the federal level. They could then pool their labor into the state that is the most cost effective to do so. This translates into an increased vulnerability of the worker, which is something I adamantly would like to avoid.

Corporations already pool their labor as it is based on tax & wage differences as it is BTW. I don't see how it would be any different if states had the right to make competitive labor laws in order to make up for high wages or high taxes. After all, this is why the tenth ammendment was for...

The fact of the matter is, that it would be much worse if there were no limits set upon the laws. One could say that states will create competitive laws, to attract more firms that offer employment. But, if the employment offered is cheap, dangerous and in general, horrible, why bother? Also, the 10th amendment simply gives powers not retained by the federal government, to the states and the people. The federal government has implied powers that generally override the 10th Amendment.

United States v. Darby (1941) pretty much sums it up:

The amendment states but a truism that all is retained which has not been surrendered. There is nothing in the history of its adoption to suggest that it was more than declaratory of the relationship between the national and state governments as it had been established by the Constitution before the amendment or that its purpose was other than to allay fears that the new national government might seek to exercise powers not granted, and that the states might not be able to exercise fully their reserved powers.

Therefore, the 10th amendment only protects reserved powers of the states, and does not override implied powers of the federal government.

And finally, it could bring many jobs back if states had control over their labor standards to compete with foreign labor markets.

Oh how wonderful it would be to have sweatshops in our lands. And yes! We could be paid the competitive wage of pennies an hour! 8(

I strongly believe basic necessities like food have gone up considerably more than 3% per year. Can't find anything on it, just my opinion for now.
Don't care what it means to you
That's cost push inflation. But what's going to happen when it combines with inflation from printing so much money? Hyperinflation.

Couldn't the value of the dollar be maintained steadily on the gold standard by simply increasing / decreasing the amount of gold per $ ?

I don't think that the Fed would push inflation to levels of 50% a month due to excessive quantitative easing. In fact, since gas prices have pushed inflation to the limits that the Fed is comfortable with (3.3% annual inflation), they are already considering shrinking the money supply.

http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/05/13/us-usa-economy-idUSTRE7492P720110513

 

[Apostacious]

Can't states make their own standards? What's the point of making those standards universal? Is their any reason that reasonable standards cannot be enforced at the state level of government?

The point of giving laws universal limits throughout a nation, is that there will be no states that will alter their laws to favor firms over workers. Without a limit set in place for labor laws, states can set their laws to how they see fit. Therefore, if enough firms pay off the right state legislators, they can get the laws they want enacted for themselves, at a much meager price, compared to what would be necessary at the federal level. They could then pool their labor into the state that is the most cost effective to do so. This translates into an increased vulnerability of the worker, which is something I adamantly would like to avoid.

Corporations already pool their labor as it is based on tax & wage differences as it is BTW. I don't see how it would be any different if states had the right to make competitive labor laws in order to make up for high wages or high taxes. After all, this is why the tenth ammendment was for...

The fact of the matter is, that it would be much worse if there were no limits set upon the laws. One could say that states will create competitive laws, to attract more firms that offer employment. But, if the employment offered is cheap, dangerous and in general, horrible, why bother? Also, the 10th amendment simply gives powers not retained by the federal government, to the states and the people. The federal government has implied powers that generally override the 10th Amendment.

United States v. Darby (1941) pretty much sums it up:

The amendment states but a truism that all is retained which has not been surrendered. There is nothing in the history of its adoption to suggest that it was more than declaratory of the relationship between the national and state governments as it had been established by the Constitution before the amendment or that its purpose was other than to allay fears that the new national government might seek to exercise powers not granted, and that the states might not be able to exercise fully their reserved powers.

Therefore, the 10th amendment only protects reserved powers of the states, and does not override implied powers of the federal government.

And finally, it could bring many jobs back if states had control over their labor standards to compete with foreign labor markets.

Oh how wonderful it would be to have sweatshops in our lands. And yes! We could be paid the competitive wage of pennies an hour! 8(

I strongly believe basic necessities like food have gone up considerably more than 3% per year. Can't find anything on it, just my opinion for now.
Don't care what it means to you
That's cost push inflation. But what's going to happen when it combines with inflation from printing so much money? Hyperinflation.

Couldn't the value of the dollar be maintained steadily on the gold standard by simply increasing / decreasing the amount of gold per $ ?

I don't think that the Fed would push inflation to levels of 50% a month due to excessive quantitative easing. In fact, since gas prices have pushed inflation to the limits that the Fed is comfortable with, they are already considering shrinking the money supply. Yet, since a large part of the current inflation is due to gas prices, and not a more expensive CPI basket, the Fed doesn't see an urgent need to do it yet.

http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/05/13/us-usa-economy-idUSTRE7492P720110513

 

[severely etarded]

The American constitution isn't some sort of Bible type thing sent to by god to man. Times changes and you need to realize that.

I am also all for getting rid of drug laws, but I'd be pretty scared if I'd have to have a person like Ron Paul as president.

Its not a" bible", however, it provides a bill of rights, along with the right to life, liberty, & the pursuit of happiness. I think its unacceptable what has happened to the bill of rights when it comes to illegal searches, free speech/expression, privacy, and the unalienable right to pursue happiness, which has been gone since the war on drugs started. (Drugs make us happy, yet we cannot use them!?)

I think we need all those rights...

 

[severely etarded]

The point of giving laws universal limits throughout a nation, is that there will be no states that will alter their laws to favor firms over workers. Without a limit set in place for labor laws, states can set their laws to how they see fit. Therefore, if enough firms pay off the right state legislators, they can get the laws they want enacted for themselves, at a much meager price, compared to what would be necessary at the federal level. They could then pool their labor into the state that is the most cost effective to do so. This translates into an increased vulnerability of the worker, which is something I adamantly would like to avoid.

Maybe this federal regulation is helping move labor overseas?

The fact of the matter is, that it would be much worse if there were no limits set upon the laws. One could say that states will create competitive laws, to attract more firms that offer employment. But, if the employment offered is cheap, dangerous and in general, horrible, why bother?

because shitty dangerous jobs are better for all than a jobless welfare state.

Oh how wonderful it would be to have sweatshops in our lands. And yes! We could be paid the competitive wage of pennies an hour! 8(

the only way around this is to force China to adopt the same labor standards, which will never happen. The other option is to sit and watch the shit go down the toilet. We are going to have to work harder if we are ever going to compete with China's labor

 

[Apostacious]

Maybe this federal regulation is helping move labor overseas?
because shitty dangerous jobs are better for all than a jobless welfare state.

Actually, not at all. If the majority of manufacturing, agriculture and service based jobs are automated, then what is left? Eventually, there will come a point where there simply is not enough jobs to employ everyone with. Therefore, there has to be welfare in the future, where we utilize our human capital for other, nonprofitable uses, such as research, purchasing of goods and services, or unprofitable forms of entertainment. Why should we just accept a low standard of living just so that we will be employed doing something that robots could do, except for a lower price? It is simply not worth it. We do not need slavery for civilization to expand anymore.

the only way around this is to force China to adopt the same labor standards, which will never happen. The other option is to sit and watch the shit go down the toilet. We are going to have to work harder if we are ever going to compete with China's labor

It is not just China, but the whole of the developing world. We can't force them to drive their minimum wages up. The cost of living is very meager in the developing world. Therefore, it is in both of our interests for unskilled labor to be off-shored, because it keeps necessary goods like, clothes, shoes, electronics, home appliances, and other goods cheap, while people in the developing world remain employed. I say, good riddance to sweatshops... we used to have them in the U.S., and we are better off without them.

But, there may come a time when the entire world is composed of developed economies, and we may have to pay more for our imported goods. Yet, by then, the entire manufacturing industry could be automated. What then? The humane answer is to create a welfare state. That way, everyone has purchasing power, and the economy will keep running. What's the alternative? Ban automation? Ban technological and societal progress?

 

[23536]

a question for the druggies here that say they would not vote for Paul or Johnson:

Why is freedom less important than comfort to you?