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

[severely etarded]

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.

Automated machines need operators to operate them. China provides these operators at less expense. How does that give us any advantage at all?

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.

Well that's fine and dandy but that isn't going to increase the rate of GDP growth...

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?

No, because automation will always need operators & supervisors. My dad worked in a chemical plant his whole life as a "plant operator"; everything was automated, and all he did was ensure all the equipment was functioning properly. Because automation is NOT fool-proof; we will ALWAYS need PEOPLE to ensure the automated machinery is working properly. My dad was always busy doing something at work, along with the hundreds of other "plant operators". Automation will almost always malfunction on a regular basis, which is where we come in...

 

[Rated E]

^ I don't think he's 'terrible' persay. I just don't trust that what he's saying in this article is really what he feels as true.

Well, the understanding I've formed of Ron Paul, from the article in the OP, and this post:

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."

would lead me to believe that what he's saying in the article is what he feels as true. Drug legalisation is in line with the abolition of government interference.

 

[Apostacious]

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?

Comfort != a social safety net. Like I said, I can handle the risk involved with buying drugs, because I can always avoid it. I cannot handle letting sick, old, disabled, and unfortunate people being left to the dogs, just so that I can buy my weed from a gas station (well, we already can, it is just called K3). You do not need to demolish the federal government in order to legalize drugs. It will be a gradual process, and it will require more than just one president that is for the legalization of drugs.

Ron Paul is a pipe-dream. He will NEVER be president, ever and neither will Rand Paul.

 

[Apostacious]

Automated machines need operators to operate them. China provides these operators at less expense. How does that give us any advantage at all?

Well, how many people do you think were employed in the automobile industry before it was heavily automated, compared to today? Also, I'm afraid I do not understand what you are asking in your second question. Are you asking how automation overseas gives us an advantage? It does because it lowers the cost of a good or service.

Well that's fine and dandy but that isn't going to increase the rate of GDP growth...

You have to understand that if we set up sweatshops in the United States again, and drive the mean wage rate down to the basic, sustenance level, we are destroying our own GDP, because we will be producing goods and services that we wouldn't be able to afford with sweatshop wages. All the U.S. needs is another innovation to drive GDP growth forward. Building a space needle and excavating mineral resources from space, would be a start.

No, because automation will always need operators & supervisors. My dad worked in a chemical plant his whole life as a "plant operator"; everything was automated, and all he did was ensure all the equipment was functioning properly. Because automation is NOT fool-proof; we will ALWAYS need PEOPLE to ensure the automated machinery is working properly. My dad was always busy doing something at work, along with the hundreds of other "plant operators". Automation will almost always malfunction on a regular basis, which is where we come in...

Yes, at a very limited level, to the point where a product once took 100 people to build, now takes 10.

 

[severely etarded]

I can handle the risk involved with buying drugs, because I can always avoid it.

You can't avoid levamisole cocaine, dirty heroin, dirty ecstasy. Any street drugs are not going to have the quality of pharmaceuticals.

I cannot handle letting sick, old, disabled, and unfortunate people being left to the dogs, just so that I can buy my weed from a gas station (well, we already can, it is just called K3).

You failed to address the point i made that presidents do not make policy; congress does. Unless congress decides to take social services away, they are not going anywhere no matter who is president.

You do not need to demolish the federal government in order to legalize drugs. It will be a gradual process, and it will require more than just one president that is for the legalization of drugs.

There is no standard process for legalizing drugs. There's too much money in special interests that will continue to lobby for the war on drugs.

Ron Paul is a pipe-dream. He will NEVER be president, ever and neither will Rand Paul.

You're starting to sound like Fox news after the CPAC straw poll that Ron Paul won...

 

[Apostacious]

You can't avoid levamisole cocaine, dirty heroin, dirty ecstasy. Any street drugs are not going to have the quality of pharmaceuticals.

You certainly CAN avoid those drugs, just don't take them, and eventually dirty drugs will lose their value, so dealers will quit selling them.

You failed to address the point i made that presidents do not make policy, congress does. Unless congress decides to take social services away, they are not going anywhere no matter who is president.

Hahaha, from the amount of points that I've brought up that you've failed to address, I lost count. But, you do know that presidents influence policy decisions. I do not like the majority of what RP stands for, other than drug legalization.

There is no standard process for legalizing drugs. There's too much money in special interests that will continue to lobby for the war on drugs.

Then why vote for Ron Paul to legalize drugs if he will not be able to do anything you want? Is it the thought that counts?

You're starting to sound like Fox news after the GOP straw poll...

That's considering he will be endorsed by his party, which you just proved that is not the case. I do not think he will make it as a Republican candidate, and that he is wasting his time. He should focus his efforts as an independent candidate. Maybe then he'd have a chance. Keep in mind that it is the electoral college that decides a president, NOT the popular vote.

 

[severely etarded]

You certainly CAN avoid those drugs, just don't take them, and eventually dirty drugs will lose their value, so dealers will quit selling them.

Dealers won't stop selling them if that's all they can find. Unfortunately, I have accepted piperazines are around, and is why I test XTC pills, but guess what... There's too many dumbasses who don't give a shit about their physical health who continue to buy these drugs. Even if an entire 1% of people (which includes me, I don't buy dirty drugs) doesn't buy them, 99% will.... So I just remenesnce about the few rare times I was able to find good drugs... And wish I could find them again. I don't contribute to the problem. I do my part. The thing is, for every one responsible user, there's 100 more who will buy anything that gets them "fucked up"

Hahaha, from the amount of points that I've brought up that you've failed to address, I lost count. But, you do know that presidents influence policy decisions. I do not like the majority of what RP stands for, other than drug legalization.

Then why vote for Ron Paul to legalize drugs if he will not be able to do anything you want? Is it the thought that counts?

Likewise, except I actually addressed all the points I disagreed with. If I didn't address them by now, it's because I agree with your points. I'm not some guy who is "anti-apostacious". I just state my conflicting viewpoints and move on. We don't necessarily disagree on everything...

The only reason I didn't address your points in the beginning is because I was trying not to turn this thread into a "Ron Paul sucks" vs "Ron Paul is God" thread. Too late now though...

Why vote for him? Because his voting record is extremely consistent with his core conservative values, which is much better than most of the hypocrite "conservatives"/"liberals". He supports the constitution, which gives us inalienable rights like "the pursuit of happiness", and a bill of rights including free speech, privacy, and protection from warrantless searches.

That's considering he will be endorsed by his party, which you just proved that is not the case. I do not think he will make it as a Republican candidate, and that he is wasting his time. He should focus his efforts as an independent candidate. Maybe then he'd have a chance.

I actually completely agree here. He needs to drop the republican party altogether. He should have run in 2008 as independent after losing the GOP nomination. It would have been a much more interesting election IMO.

 

[Apostacious]

Dealers won't stop selling them if that's all they can find. Unfortunately, I have accepted piperazines are around, and is why I test XTC pills, but guess what... There's too many dumbasses who don't give a shit about their physical health who continue to buy these drugs. Even if an entire 1% of people (which includes me, I don't buy dirty drugs) doesn't buy them, 99% will.... So I just remenesnce about the few rare times I was able to find good drugs... And wish I could find them again. I don't contribute to the problem. I do my part. The thing is, for every one responsible user, there's 100 more who will buy anything that gets them "fucked up"

True. It is the morons that ruin it for all of us. Like, those that od'ed and died from mixing large amounts of 2ct7 and amt.

Likewise, except I actually addressed all the points I disagreed with. If I didn't address them by now, it's because I agree with your points. I'm not some guy who is "anti-apostacious". I just state my conflicting viewpoints and move on. We don't necessarily disagree on everything...

The only reason I didn't address your points in the beginning is because I was trying not to turn this thread into a "Ron Paul sucks" vs "Ron Paul is God" thread. Too late now though...

Well, to be honest, that is how the thread started. I am not against that changing at all. I welcome it.

Why vote for him? Because his voting record is extremely consistent with his core conservative values, which is much better than most of the hypocrite "conservatives"/"liberals"

I, for one, am greatly aligned against his conservative ideas, aside from his stance against the PATRIOT act, and the War on Drugs. I think that government should exist to improve the quality of life for people, and free/ highly subsidized health care and financial support for the poor, and elderly are the best ways to improve the human condition.

I actually completely agree here. He needs to drop the republican party altogether. He should have run in 2008 as independent after losing the GOP nomination. It would have been a much more interesting election IMO.

If he weren't against the abolition of the federal government, the Federal Reserve, and for eliminating our fiat currency, then transitioning over to a gold-standard, I would vote for him.

 

[Blacksoulman]

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.

That is a good point but how does a central government pay for these nonprofitable uses without passing off the debt to the next generation?

Also, your scenario does not include the technical progression of factory workers rising at the same level as technology. For instance, web development may be considered a specialized skill of today but later generations may have the lowest wage earners doing what was once a highly value skill.

 

[jonny.steel18]

Ron Paul is not terrible he is the only one that is on our side he opposes the statis quoe..Ask yourself who benefits from the wars ?? Machiavelli made an elephant disappear in front of a whole room full of people useing misdirection..
1.Why is there a war on drugs??
2.who started the war on drugs???
3.why is there a war on terrorism???
4.who started the war on terrorism???
5.who has profited from these wars???
6.who pays for these wars??
answer these 6 questions and you will find that it only points to the wolves...

"Beware of the false prophets, who come to you in sheep’s clothing, but inwardly are ravenous wolves (Matt. 7:15). The warning was important because Jesus later said to them: "Behold, I send you out as sheep in the midst of wolves; therefore be shrewd as serpents, and innocent as doves" (Matt. 10:16).

 

[23536]

Comfort != a social safety net. Like I said, I can handle the risk involved with buying drugs, because I can always avoid it.

How can you avoid it? Do you know where police are at all times?

If the cost of your social safety net is the abrogation of individual freedom, then to hell with it.

 

[Khadijah]

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?

It aint just about ME, thats why.

"Well, I think its more important for me to be able to freely get high than for the millions of americans who depend on social services like welfare, food stamps, etc to be able to survive." Its a very selfish viewpoint.

And maybe for people who come from a life where they never had to worry where their next meal came from, who never been without a place to live, who never sat in the dark when their power got turned off, who never spent winters in their childhood boiling water on the stove so they could heat the kitchen with the steam, and for their bath water bcuz they couldnt afford to buy oil to heat the house or the hot water, who dont know how it is to live like that, drugs are the most important issue to you.

But being able to say that legalization is the most important issue for you is a fucking LUXURY ,and yall should realize that. For those of us who got more pressing issues, whether or not we can smoke a blunt or maintain our heroin addictions is a lot less important than the ability to get food stamps and welfare when we get kicked out of our house and are on the street with a infant child to take care of. Having those programs is there is the only thing that lets millions of people in this country sleep at night.

To the folks askin the type of questions as the one I am replying to: Becuz yalls basic needs are met and secure, you can worry about other less survival-oriented issues. But for some of us there are some much more important things that need to be secured FIRST before we can even consider such non-essential shit.

I rather have food stamps, welfare, medicaid, public housing, and all the safety net programs that are there, becuz while they dont provide everything, and life relying only on those things is still barely surviving, you are REALLY not surviving without them. Im somebody who has used them in the past and God willing i wont have to but reality-wise I most likely will have to use em again in the future. That is WAY more important to me than whether or not I can use drugs.

Calling it "comfort" instead of SURVIVAL shows how closed off you are from the realities of the world where people aint in a comfortable middle class life.

Maybe Im the one who should be askin you about your "comfort". The ability to do drugs as you please, in your well-cared for, financially stable life sure sounds alot more like comfort-related desire than those of us who only want to be able to put food on the table and have a safe place to sleep at night.

 

[23536]

the freedom to get high may be a luxury, but freedom from imprisonment is no luxury.

 

[uNhoLeee]

Comfort != a social safety net. Like I said, I can handle the risk involved with buying drugs, because I can always avoid it. I cannot handle letting sick, old, disabled, and unfortunate people being left to the dogs, just so that I can buy my weed from a gas station (well, we already can, it is just called K3). You do not need to demolish the federal government in order to legalize drugs. It will be a gradual process, and it will require more than just one president that is for the legalization of drugs.

Ron Paul is a pipe-dream. He will NEVER be president, ever and neither will Rand Paul.

don't worry champ, government will be 'caring' for you in a nazi concentration camp soon enough.

 

[severely etarded]

It aint just about ME, thats why.

"Well, I think its more important for me to be able to freely get high than for the millions of americans who depend on social services like welfare, food stamps, etc to be able to survive." Its a very selfish viewpoint.

While I agree those programs are very important, the American people have voted in morons like the Bush admin which ran up the deficit iirc like 12 trillion dollars... And as a consequence will have to pay it back one way or another.

I'm sorry, but when you see how many crackheads are trading their kids' foodstamps for crack everyday, it's sickening that drugs are illegal. And these programs are WIDELY abused.

And maybe for people who come from a life where they never had to worry where their next meal came from, who never been without a place to live, who never sat in the dark when their power got turned off, who never spent winters in their childhood boiling water on the stove so they could heat the kitchen with the steam, and for their bath water bcuz they couldnt afford to buy oil to heat the house or the hot water, who dont know how it is to live like that, drugs are the most important issue to you.

Been there before K... The thing is, in the past it was easier to obtain employment and get back on your feet.

But being able to say that legalization is the most important issue for you is a fucking LUXURY ,and yall should realize that. For those of us who got more pressing issues, whether or not we can smoke a blunt or maintain our heroin addictions is a lot less important than the ability to get food stamps and welfare when we get kicked out of our house and are on the street with a infant child to take care of. Having those programs is there is the only thing that lets millions of people in this country sleep at night.

No, legalization is one reason. If the federal government lowered income taxes because of a reduced size, states would be able to adopt more social service programs and pay for them by increasing taxes at a state level, with the reduction of federal taxes...

To the folks askin the type of questions as the one I am replying to: Becuz yalls basic needs are met and secure, you can worry about other less survival-oriented issues. But for some of us there are some much more important things that need to be secured FIRST before we can even consider such non-essential shit.

I rather have food stamps, welfare, medicaid, public housing, and all the safety net programs that are there, becuz while they dont provide everything, and life relying only on those things is still barely surviving, you are REALLY not surviving without them. Im somebody who has used them in the past and God willing i wont have to but reality-wise I most likely will have to use em again in the future. That is WAY more important to me than whether or not I can use drugs.

Calling it "comfort" instead of SURVIVAL shows how closed off you are from the realities of the world where people aint in a comfortable middle class life.

Maybe Im the one who should be askin you about your "comfort". The ability to do drugs as you please, in your well-cared for, financially stable life sure sounds alot more like comfort-related desire than those of us who only want to be able to put food on the table and have a safe place to sleep at night

I understand, all I'm saying is that there's no reason these benefits couldn't be provided at the state level.

 

[severely etarded]

the freedom to get high may be a luxury, but freedom from imprisonment is no luxury.

Agreed. How is it a luxury that you personally wouldn't have to be worried about doing a life sentence in a cage, vs everybody gets food stamps etc. I think food stamps are the luxury, when a high percentage are traded for drugs anyway

 

[Khadijah]

I understand, all I'm saying is that there's no reason these benefits couldn't be provided at the state level.

Thats a fantasy...with the greedy mutha fuckas in this country the only ways these programs gonna stick around is if someones MAKING it happen. No states gonna voluntarily spend that money when it dont HAVE to. Ron paul wants these programs eliminated, and if that happened, they wouldnt just pop up again outta the kindness of peoples hearts. unfortunately people need to be forced to do the right thing and without nobody forcin, social services will be long gone.

 

[Khadijah]

Agreed. How is it a luxury that you personally wouldn't have to be worried about doing a life sentence in a cage, vs everybody gets food stamps etc. I think food stamps are the luxury, when a high percentage are traded for drugs anyway

Because EVERYBODY NEEDS TO EAT, you dont NEED to use drugs. That should be pretty simple to understand.

And please yo--I would bet the last fuckin penny in my babys piggy bank that im saving up for his future that the amount of food stamps that goes to food is higher than the amount that gets traded, sold, etc. And even if some people do, that means that the people who use em as they suppose to be used deserve not to eat?

That sounds kinda like the people who are for higher restrictions on pain medications, becuz "a high percentage are diverted to illegal use." So, nobody gets pain meds, even legitimately suffering people, becuz its better to let 9 patients in legit pain suffer than to let 1 junkie get high. Right?

 

[Blacksoulman]

Ron paul wants these programs eliminated, and if that happened, they wouldnt just pop up again outta the kindness of peoples hearts. unfortunately people need to be forced to do the right thing and without nobody forcin, social services will be long gone.

Each generation needs to be slowly weened off the ponzi scheme. Pyramid programs eventually crash when the debt is called in whether state or central governments support them. Right now we are just passing the debt of social welfare to the next generation.

Although wiping them out right away is too stressful. Things like tax incentives for medical savings account are a start in the right direction AWAY from addictive social services.

 

[Apostacious]

That is a good point but how does a central government pay for these nonprofitable uses without passing off the debt to the next generation?

Also, your scenario does not include the technical progression of factory workers rising at the same level as technology. For instance, web development may be considered a specialized skill of today but later generations may have the lowest wage earners doing what was once a highly value skill.

It pays for them through taxation. If there are a very finite amount of jobs, they will most assuredly be very high paying, especially compared to those that are without a job. Welfare should never pay for more than a low-middle class standard of living, imo. Additionally, there are other ways, such as eliminating money altogether, which I am strongly against.