US - Mexico president hints legalizing drugs may be needed

[AndroidsDreamofBTC]

-I want a currency backed by a precious metal, not faith. Faith has proven to be very destructive when taken out of context liek our monetary system.

This is a highly destructive pipe dream. Just because Ron Paul says this is a good idea, does not make it so. At this point in time, IT IS NOT POSSIBLE to switch to a monetary system based on gold. There is a reason that countries have switched to fiat currency in the past 100 years (hint: and this reason wasn't to make Mr. Paul & Co pissed off). Don't you understand that switching to a gold based currency system would literally destroy the whole world economy in one day? Any system based on gold would be limited by the actual supply of gold. Have you heard of thing called deflation? Do you know what kind of hell it can wreak on an economy?

It's funny to see how many so called "independent" minded Ron Paul supports are willing to ignore basic realities in order to satisfy their own ideological viewpoint.

I am all for drug legalization, but it's stupid to support someone, solely because of their viewpoint on this issue (and I see that a lot on BL).

 

[gaktattack]

Good points, it would be hell for us especially as private gold ownership is now allowed and our gold reserves are definitely lower than preownership in the 70s. The USs currency wouldnt hold up under that system. Think about the inflation youd have in the 3rd world. You have countries that basically back their currency with clay pots and macromay.

Our 2 camps seem to vote based on 2 very worthless issues geopolitically, abortion and death penalty.

And dont even get me started on voting base on religion.

 

[EndlessSummer]

Ron Paul is very rational, and I am a libertarian. But, I think universal healthcare is a good idea, and deregulation in our corpratocracy is not working as they have too much power. Its not a good time for nil taxes and government, however prostitution and drugs prohibition and spying on citizens etc needs to stop.

I agree. I don't entirely agree with Ron Paul, but goddamn at least he stands by his principles unwavered by lobbyists and talking points. Plus he supports an end to Prohibition, which I find even more important than universal healthcare like every other modern nation has.

 

[captainballs]

If drugs are legalized in one country but not the other, for instance Mexico and not the United States, then the real problem, crime, will be just as intense. Think about it this way: Mexico suddenly legalizes cocaine and marijuana, so the price in Mexico drops but you still have the added profit margin of smuggling it right over the imaginary line into the U.S. Even if the price in the U.S. drops by the same proportion, the profit margins will probably equal out (almost exactly) because the labor cost of smuggling still produces a lot of illegal drugs' value. The major difference A push for more quantity due to lower prices overall. So prices go down, trade increases, and crime increases due to the fact that smuggling is a black market activity.

My point is that for this to work, America has to legalize all drugs - sort of a cooperative thing to help out a neighbor. i was in Mexico a couple months ago. 99.99% of everyone are beacons of honesty, hard work, and quaint Catholic values. But the criminal element, even though it is made up of such a small group of people, is so violent that it feels like 1984 down there. Everyone closes up shop and gets off the streets at like 6:30 pm.

 

[psychomimetic]

^I live in Texas. Back in the day people here used to go to Mexico all the time, everyone went whenever they had enough of a break. Mexico is awesome. But more recently, few people go, even a lot of Mexicans I know with close family in Mexico have stopped going. I was there around some border towns a bit over a year ago and it was crazy, the drug wars have turned entire cities into ghost towns. It's not the drugs that are new, we used to get drugs in Mexico most times we went. It's the government interference with the cartels that's causing the violence.

What you say about America having to legalize seems logical to me, but US drug policy has never been built on logic. I posted a link to more recent Mexican drug laws and it shows that they are on a road to decriminalizing, regardless of what the US does. The US is influential, but Mexico is not a puppet state. Mexico legalizing without America doing so, would, like you point out, not stop them trafficking to the US, which I guess would still be illegal. Definitely a dilemma.

Mine and Severely Etarded's conversation on pg 1 addresses all of what you said here.

I had the same position you had on states rights, until S.E. pointed out that no state can abandon the federal constitution, and the federal constitution cannot be amended to make a state do anything. As I said before on what I was referring to earlier, I live in IL. Second worst financially stable state. We are about to have 3 counties decriminalizing marijuana. Cook county has had it decriminalized for a long time. The county couldn't afford the war on drugs, so they cut it. IL wouldn't hesitate. Neither would a lot of states.

And at least with Ron Paul you get what you ordered. Remember Obama's policies before he was elected? How he hasnt done any of it post-election? He's doing the same now to sound good and get re-elected. Remember Bush having a modest and restrained foreign policy pre-election? Remember the two wars he put us in post-election?

Fact of the matter is, all the major presidential candidates are corporate puppets except one. Ron Paul. He cant do anything by himself, but his first State of the Union address would change that. He would have a 5-10 minute speech to talk about his views on civil liberties and the war overseas. It won't be a 30 second response from a carefully worded question to screw him like you hear at primaries. I'm an actual Ron Paul supporter, and not one of those doped out kids screaming "RON PAUL DUUUUUUUDE!"(Picture stereotypical California kid with a beanie haha). I watch primaries, and have thoroughly researched all of my choices. I just feel as though he is the only genuine candidate. I'm cool with it if you disagree, but love or hate the man, he's one of the only honest politician out there right now. And he's running for President. We can't pass up the chance of our first honest President in 40 years slip through our fingers because it'll probably never happen again.

Man, I had a good reply typed up last night but then I got high and forgot and turned my comp off before posting it.

First off, about the DEA. The DEA does fall under the executive branch. That doesn't mean the president has the power to dissolve it. And the DEA does not fall under the control of any branch of government (they are under the Department of Justice technically, which is executive branch). Obama told the DEA to stop doing raids dispensaries in states with medical marijuana. And they didn't stop. This is because the DEA, iirc, doesn't require presidential approval for anything it does. They don't even answer to the president, they have to get approval for major things from Congress but not until after they do them so basically the DEA does whatever it wants and then asks congress if it was cool. I'm pretty sure only Congress has the authority to end the DEA because Congress created the DEA.

Here are reasons the next president will not legalize or even decriminalize drugs (marijuana is a possibility). The American voters support prohibition. Many very powerful aspects of the American economy support prohibition (tobacco, alcohol and pharm companies, the US military, the vast majority of US police, and the private prison "industry" to name a few of the bigger ones). There is not enough public support for anyone to end prohibition at this time.

Ron Paul is crazy and I'm not terribly interested in debating about him. If you guys don't get why shutting down the federal reserve, going back to the gold standard, closing most important social services or shrinking them to a ridiculous size and pursuing a policy of isolation are bad ideas, it's probably not worth me explaining. He's not fiscally conservative, he's crazy. If he was fiscally conservative he would support the government limiting spending by spending money in areas that will bring down overall costs. For instance, government provided healthcare is significantly cheaper for the government then letting healthcare be run by private interests. I also hate how he gets branded as supporting individual liberties even though he's anti-abortion (he would even cut funding to Planned Parenthood), anti-union and even against the Civil Rights Act, made to protect basic human rights. He would fuck this country up to an incredible level. Luckily, he won't win.

Back to public interest in ending prohibition. Representative democracy is supposed to see the politician who was elected represent the interests of their constituents. The majority of voters in America would be very against legalizing drugs. Shit, in California, the state most likely to legalize marijuana, the voters voted not to legalize. And that's just weed, very, very few people support legalizing anything other then weed.

You mentioned earlier (or someone did) the idea that it's bad for a candidate to change their views to try and get reelected, but that's kinda how representative democracy is bound to work. The candidates try to get votes by appealing to as many people as they can.

What numbers guy said about a president unilaterally de-scheduling a drug seems possible to me, he's a smart dude. But I don't see it happening. The main reasons are- 99% of everyone in Congress would be against it, the majority of American voters would be against it and every private interest would either be against it or not care. So there's really just no support for legalizing drugs in this country.

Like I mentioned earlier, it's much more likely in Mexico, they already legalized possession of small quantities. If you know Spanish (a translator will allow you to at least get the drift if you don't), the difference in their drug policy found here are fairly interesting- http://www.mind-surf.net/drogas/legislacionmexicana.htm

This part sheds some light onto where Mexico is going- "En Injustificabilidad de la prohibición legal de las drogas (Tesis, ITAM, México, 1996), Muñoz Nava demuestra que la legislación penal en materia de delitos contra la salud presenta serias dificultades desde el punto de vista dogmático, ya que:..."

In the next paragraph there are bullet points and they explain some problems with drug enforcement.
They basically are talking about how the dogmatic way of viewing drug laws clearly doesn't work. They call drug trafficking a "crime of abstract danger." They go on to say that possession and use do not constitute a endangerment or cause significant harm.

"También resultan violados por la legislación antidrogas los principios de racionalidad de la pena (el cual estipula que la sanción equivale al daño causado), de humanidad (que protege los derechos humanos de los infractores), de idoneidad (que exige se demuestre que la criminalización es un medio útil para el control de un problema social) y de subsidiariedad (que impone la previa comprobación de que no existen alternativas adecuadas a la criminalización)."

Here it talks about how many anti-drug laws defy principles of rationality with regards to sentencing.

Anyway, this thread got pretty off topic with the Ron Paul stuff but I just wanted to throw in here that America doesn't control Mexico's drug policy and they've been headed towards legalizing for several years now.

In the US I don't think drugs will be legalized anytime soon, regardless of the politician, simply because there's not even close to enough support. Ron Paul won't win partially because most GOP voters are against his stances on drug legalization and everyone else can see how crazy the rest of the man's ideas are, plus most non-GOP voters also support prohibition. I also agree with the "voting for someone based on one of their ideas is stupid" sentiment expressed earlier. Single issue voting is silly.

In Mexico it might happen because the people of Mexico are beginning to demand change on a large scale. Politicians can't completely ignore their constituents and still get elected.


Lastly, I'd like to address this-

And at least with Ron Paul you get what you ordered. Remember Obama's policies before he was elected? How he hasnt done any of it post-election? He's doing the same now to sound good and get re-elected. Remember Bush having a modest and restrained foreign policy pre-election? Remember the two wars he put us in post-election?

Obama kept most of his campaign promises and he's been quite an active president actually. I'll refer you to this http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/promises/obameter/ if you want specifics. And no, I don't remember Bush having a modest and restrained foreign policy, because he didn't. Bush was crazy and he seemed crazy to me when he was running. Obama is a moderate who's pretty good for an American politician and leaps and bounds more reasonable, intelligent and sane then any GOP candidate, including Ron Paul.

Someone keeping their promises doesn't matter much to me when 95% of their promises are stupid, bad for the country and just wrong.

 

[Splinterguitar69]

^I live in Texas. Back in the day people here used to go to Mexico all the time, everyone went whenever they had enough of a break. Mexico is awesome. But more recently, few people go, even a lot of Mexicans I know with close family in Mexico have stopped going. I was there around some border towns a bit over a year ago and it was crazy, the drug wars have turned entire cities into ghost towns. It's not the drugs that are new, we used to get drugs in Mexico most times we went. It's the government interference with the cartels that's causing the violence.

What you say about America having to legalize seems logical to me, but US drug policy has never been built on logic. I posted a link to more recent Mexican drug laws and it shows that they are on a road to decriminalizing, regardless of what the US does. The US is influential, but Mexico is not a puppet state. Mexico legalizing without America doing so, would, like you point out, not stop them trafficking to the US, which I guess would still be illegal. Definitely a dilemma.




Man, I had a good reply typed up last night but then I got high and forgot and turned my comp off before posting it.

First off, about the DEA. The DEA does fall under the executive branch. That doesn't mean the president has the power to dissolve it. And the DEA does not fall under the control of any branch of government (they are under the Department of Justice technically, which is executive branch). Obama told the DEA to stop doing raids dispensaries in states with medical marijuana. And they didn't stop. This is because the DEA, iirc, doesn't require presidential approval for anything it does. They don't even answer to the president, they have to get approval for major things from Congress but not until after they do them so basically the DEA does whatever it wants and then asks congress if it was cool. I'm pretty sure only Congress has the authority to end the DEA because Congress created the DEA.

Here are reasons the next president will not legalize or even decriminalize drugs (marijuana is a possibility). The American voters support prohibition. Many very powerful aspects of the American economy support prohibition (tobacco, alcohol and pharm companies, the US military, the vast majority of US police, and the private prison "industry" to name a few of the bigger ones). There is not enough public support for anyone to end prohibition at this time.

Ron Paul is crazy and I'm not terribly interested in debating about him. If you guys don't get why shutting down the federal reserve, going back to the gold standard, closing most important social services or shrinking them to a ridiculous size and pursuing a policy of isolation are bad ideas, it's probably not worth me explaining. He's not fiscally conservative, he's crazy. If he was fiscally conservative he would support the government limiting spending by spending money in areas that will bring down overall costs. For instance, government provided healthcare is significantly cheaper for the government then letting healthcare be run by private interests. I also hate how he gets branded as supporting individual liberties even though he's anti-abortion (he would even cut funding to Planned Parenthood), anti-union and even against the Civil Rights Act, made to protect basic human rights. He would fuck this country up to an incredible level. Luckily, he won't win.

Back to public interest in ending prohibition. Representative democracy is supposed to see the politician who was elected represent the interests of their constituents. The majority of voters in America would be very against legalizing drugs. Shit, in California, the state most likely to legalize marijuana, the voters voted not to legalize. And that's just weed, very, very few people support legalizing anything other then weed.

You mentioned earlier (or someone did) the idea that it's bad for a candidate to change their views to try and get reelected, but that's kinda how representative democracy is bound to work. The candidates try to get votes by appealing to as many people as they can.

What numbers guy said about a president unilaterally de-scheduling a drug seems possible to me, he's a smart dude. But I don't see it happening. The main reasons are- 99% of everyone in Congress would be against it, the majority of American voters would be against it and every private interest would either be against it or not care. So there's really just no support for legalizing drugs in this country.

Like I mentioned earlier, it's much more likely in Mexico, they already legalized possession of small quantities. If you know Spanish (a translator will allow you to at least get the drift if you don't), the difference in their drug policy found here are fairly interesting- http://www.mind-surf.net/drogas/legislacionmexicana.htm

This part sheds some light onto where Mexico is going- "En Injustificabilidad de la prohibición legal de las drogas (Tesis, ITAM, México, 1996), Muñoz Nava demuestra que la legislación penal en materia de delitos contra la salud presenta serias dificultades desde el punto de vista dogmático, ya que:..."

In the next paragraph there are bullet points and they explain some problems with drug enforcement.
They basically are talking about how the dogmatic way of viewing drug laws clearly doesn't work. They call drug trafficking a "crime of abstract danger." They go on to say that possession and use do not constitute a endangerment or cause significant harm.

"También resultan violados por la legislación antidrogas los principios de racionalidad de la pena (el cual estipula que la sanción equivale al daño causado), de humanidad (que protege los derechos humanos de los infractores), de idoneidad (que exige se demuestre que la criminalización es un medio útil para el control de un problema social) y de subsidiariedad (que impone la previa comprobación de que no existen alternativas adecuadas a la criminalización)."

Here it talks about how many anti-drug laws defy principles of rationality with regards to sentencing.

Anyway, this thread got pretty off topic with the Ron Paul stuff but I just wanted to throw in here that America doesn't control Mexico's drug policy and they've been headed towards legalizing for several years now.

In the US I don't think drugs will be legalized anytime soon, regardless of the politician, simply because there's not even close to enough support. Ron Paul won't win partially because most GOP voters are against his stances on drug legalization and everyone else can see how crazy the rest of the man's ideas are, plus most non-GOP voters also support prohibition. I also agree with the "voting for someone based on one of their ideas is stupid" sentiment expressed earlier. Single issue voting is silly.

In Mexico it might happen because the people of Mexico are beginning to demand change on a large scale. Politicians can't completely ignore their constituents and still get elected.


Lastly, I'd like to address this-


Obama kept most of his campaign promises and he's been quite an active president actually. I'll refer you to this http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/promises/obameter/ if you want specifics. And no, I don't remember Bush having a modest and restrained foreign policy, because he didn't. Bush was crazy and he seemed crazy to me when he was running. Obama is a moderate who's pretty good for an American politician and leaps and bounds more reasonable, intelligent and sane then any GOP candidate, including Ron Paul.

Someone keeping their promises doesn't matter much to me when 95% of their promises are stupid, bad for the country and just wrong.

-I would have shot down the Civil Right's Act too. That piece of legislation had loop holes. Many many loop holes. Look at the drug war statistics and how unfairly African Americans are treated.
-His personal belief is anti-abortion. But his political belief is that the states should decide
-I think you are wrong about fiat vs. gold standard. Fiat money has put us where we are now. Gold standard will keep the money worth something. Even if we go beyond gold standard and do an "all precious metal" standard to allow more options it might even be better.

WHat do you propose as our currency? I'm all for resource based economy, but that won't happen for another 200 years or so.

 

[Splinterguitar69]

I agree. I don't entirely agree with Ron Paul, but goddamn at least he stands by his principles unwavered by lobbyists and talking points. Plus he supports an end to Prohibition, which I find even more important than universal healthcare like every other modern nation has.

This. He is the only candidate who is honest. People not researching their choices or not even voting got us where we are now. I'm not Jesus, son of Ron Paul or anything. But why WOULDNT you vote for the only honest guy running?

 

[psychomimetic]

This. He is the only candidate who is honest. People not researching their choices or not even voting got us where we are now. I'm not Jesus, son of Ron Paul or anything. But why WOULDNT you vote for the only honest guy running?

This is the last totally off topic post I'm going to put in this thread. We should keep this thread focused on Mexican drug laws, not Ron Paul. I've also had more arguments about Ron Paul then I ever need to have and I just hate arguing about him.

First off, Obama is pretty honest I think, and his record reflects this (check the second link in my last post). I wish he was much more left then he is, but he isn't. Seeing as I'm somewhere in the realm of socialist politically, I don't see any reason at all for me to vote for Ron Paul. His beliefs on the drug war I can agree with, but for the most part I'm on the opposite side of the political spectrum. I don't see why I'd vote for someone I fundamentally disagree with just cause he's honest.

I won't vote for Ron Paul because I consider him a borderline fascist and because his ideas make no economic or political sense. Honesty doesn't mean shit when you're a right wing looney. If he was elected I would be hoping that he had lied about his campaign promises and would be more moderate then he had promised.

Problems with the gold standard are many. I don't really want to type it all up so I found this which lists the big ones- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gold_standard#Disadvantages

I'll just quote the ones I see as particularly important from the link-

1. The total amount of gold that has ever been mined has been estimated at around 142,000 metric tons.[23] This is less than the value of circulating money in the U.S. alone, where more than $8.3 trillion is in circulation or in deposit (M2).[24] Therefore, a return to the gold standard, if also combined with a mandated end to fractional reserve banking, would result in a significant increase in the current value of gold, which may limit its use in current applications.[25]

2. Deflation rewards savers[26][27] and punishes debtors.[28][29] Real debt burdens therefore rise, causing borrowers to cut spending to service their debts or to default. Lenders become wealthier, but may choose to save some of their additional wealth rather than spending it all.[30] The overall amount of expenditure is therefore likely to fall.[30]

3. Mainstream economists believe that economic recessions can be largely mitigated by increasing money supply during economic downturns.[31] Following a gold standard would mean that the amount of money would be determined by the supply of gold, and hence monetary policy could no longer be used to stabilize the economy in times of economic recession.[32] Such reason is often employed to partially blame the gold standard for the Great Depression, citing that the Federal Reserve couldn't expand credit enough to offset the deflationary forces at work in the market.

4. Most economists favor a low, positive rate of inflation. Partly this reflects fear of deflationary shocks, but primarily because they believe that central banks still have some role to play in dampening fluctuations in output and unemployment. Central banks can more safely play that role when a positive rate of inflation gives them room to tighten money growth without inducing price declines.[40]

5. It is difficult to manipulate a gold standard to tailor to an economy’s demand for money, providing practical constraints against the measures that central banks might otherwise use to respond to economic crises.[41]

6. Although the gold standard gives long-run price stability, it does in the short run bring high price volatility.[35][37] It has been argued by, among others, Anna Schwartz that this kind of instability in short-term price levels can lead to financial instability as lenders and borrowers become uncertain about the value of debt.[38]

The Gold Standard is no small part of the reason that America entered the first great depression. The gold standard may give some long term stability but it is a very unstable way to do things and can result in disaster. Especially in the short term. Going back to the gold standard in the midst of the recession we are in now would be crazy and cause extreme economic volatility.

On top of that, Ron Paul's ideas about the federal reserve are crazy. He wants to completely destabilize the American economy it seems. If you're unaware of why the federal reserve is important, here's a brief summary but I really recommend taking a high school or ideally college level government or economics class, which should explain it. http://www.house.gov/jec/fed/fed/fed-impt.htm


Your comment about the Civil Rights Act betrays either an offensive level of social conservatism or a misunderstanding of history. The civil rights act is not at all the reason that black people are disproportionately fucked over by drug laws. The Civil Rights Act greatly improved American society on all levels. It wasn't only women and minorities that benefited, it was all of us.

You're saying that if you were in control, you would NOT have supported integrating schools? You would have been against equalizing voting rights? You don't think people should have equal protection under the 14th Amendment? You think businesses and public places should be allowed to refuse people service because of race (Ron Paul does)? You don't understand history then, or the context of racial hatred, mass violence and the history of oppression and slavery in the South. You need to read a civil rights history or three. I recommend Eyes on the Prize by Julian Bond and Juan Williams. Throw in American Pictures by Jacob Holdt (available free online!) and maybe Negroes With Guns by Robert F. Williams and speeches by MLK and Malcolm X and you will understand the climate of racial hatred and oppression that existed and still exists in the south. The Civil Rights Act literally was part of people's fight to recognize everyone as human, it was a great step forwards for the cause of general human dignity and was very, very important.

I'm not going to debate this further because it will end up pissing me off. I was raised among people who fought for Civil Rights, whos friends and families died for it, who were disowned by their families for their views. The Civil Rights Act was an important and absolutely essential step in American history, and anyone who thinks otherwise is trying to rewrite that history. Anyway, Civil Rights is a topic very important to me and close to my heart, and as such I don't want this thread getting more off topic with an argument about the Civil Rights Movement because I hate arguing online and because I'd like to have a better day then that. Please do read about the Civil Rights movement though, the Civil Rights Act was absolutely necessary and important in the climate of the mid-1960s and it greatly improved the conditions of ALL people in America, of all races, genders and creeds. Furthering the cause of human equality inevitably bettered every American's life.

Ron Paul is an idiot, I'm not really interested in arguing further because I've found that 99% of Ron Paul supporters wont stop supporting him no matter how many logical reasons are given. Any points I've given could easily be found in one of the Ron Paul threads from CE&P, I'm really just beating a dead horse. And I just don't want to do it, he's going to lose anyway, which is good for everyone involved. I'm interested in talking about the situation of Mexican drug laws, not about the 2012 election. If you want to argue about Ron Paul, there are lots of very smart people in the Current Events and Politics section who are always willing to defend their ideas it seems, and quite a few Ron Paul threads have moved through there already. I am not one of those people though, I dislike arguing about politics, especially domestic ones. I argue too much about politics in my personal life, I don't really want that arguing to bridge over into my time online. So I quit and with all due respect say that you should debate Ron Paul's merits with someone who cares.

I really am interested in the issues in Mexico though, they have a pretty interesting drug policy that is already pretty damn liberal and looks like it's going to get much more so.

 

[psychomimetic]

Splinter- Sorry if I came off as a bit of an asshole in the above post, I have a bitch of a hangover from last night and I'm not feeling very good or nice today. Rereading it I feel like it's scattered and a bit dickish, I didn't mean it that way. I still stand by the general ideas I expressed though, but I meant no insult and I feel it comes off as somewhat insulting. It's just cause I feel like shit

 

[severely etarded]

First off, Obama is pretty honest I think, and his record reflects this (check the second link in my last post). I wish he was much more left then he is, but he isn't. Seeing as I'm somewhere in the realm of socialist politically, I don't see any reason at all for me to vote for Ron Paul. His beliefs on the drug war I can agree with, but for the most part I'm on the opposite side of the political spectrum. I don't see why I'd vote for someone I fundamentally disagree with just cause he's honest.

Obama re-instated the patriot act he was against during his campaign, TWICE. He didn't make good on getting out of the Middle East, and socialized healthcare would be much better than "Obamacare". Don't get me started on Obama, his record is terrible. I could go on and on pointing out his lies, but I have other things to do today than google one of the many lists of lies and broken promises Obama told. The point is clear that he is not honest, and a liar.

On top of that, Ron Paul's ideas about the federal reserve are crazy. He wants to completely destabilize the American economy it seems. If you're unaware of why the federal reserve is important, here's a brief summary but I really recommend taking a high school or ideally college level government or economics class, which should explain it. http://www.house.gov/jec/fed/fed/fed-impt.htm

Wasn't aware the US economy (or the world's) was stable atm... You can't destabilize something that is already unstable....

I won't vote for Ron Paul because I consider him a borderline fascist and because his ideas make no economic or political sense. Honesty doesn't mean shit when you're a right wing looney. If he was elected I would be hoping that he had lied about his campaign promises and would be more moderate then he had promised.

Fascist? Man you need to quit watching so much Chris Matthews/ Rachel Maddeaux, and get your definition of fascist straight. Fascist is exactly what Ron Paul is against - All this "homeland security" is a prime example of fascist. That's what Obama has continued to step up, since taking office.

Same shit Bush was doing, except this time it's a half black man who calls himself a democrat :D

1. The total amount of gold that has ever been mined has been estimated at around 142,000 metric tons.[23] This is less than the value of circulating money in the U.S. alone, where more than $8.3 trillion is in circulation or in deposit (M2).[24] Therefore, a return to the gold standard, if also combined with a mandated end to fractional reserve banking, would result in a significant increase in the current value of gold, which may limit its use in current applications.[25]

2. Deflation rewards savers[26][27] and punishes debtors.[28][29] Real debt burdens therefore rise, causing borrowers to cut spending to service their debts or to default. Lenders become wealthier, but may choose to save some of their additional wealth rather than spending it all.[30] The overall amount of expenditure is therefore likely to fall.[30]

3. Mainstream economists believe that economic recessions can be largely mitigated by increasing money supply during economic downturns.[31] Following a gold standard would mean that the amount of money would be determined by the supply of gold, and hence monetary policy could no longer be used to stabilize the economy in times of economic recession.[32] Such reason is often employed to partially blame the gold standard for the Great Depression, citing that the Federal Reserve couldn't expand credit enough to offset the deflationary forces at work in the market.

4. Most economists favor a low, positive rate of inflation. Partly this reflects fear of deflationary shocks, but primarily because they believe that central banks still have some role to play in dampening fluctuations in output and unemployment. Central banks can more safely play that role when a positive rate of inflation gives them room to tighten money growth without inducing price declines.[40]

5. It is difficult to manipulate a gold standard to tailor to an economy’s demand for money, providing practical constraints against the measures that central banks might otherwise use to respond to economic crises.[41]

6. Although the gold standard gives long-run price stability, it does in the short run bring high price volatility.[35][37] It has been argued by, among others, Anna Schwartz that this kind of instability in short-term price levels can lead to financial instability as lenders and borrowers become uncertain about the value of debt.[38]

Those are disadvantages, but the some advantages are things that would have prevented this recession to begin with:

2. The gold standard limits the power of governments to inflate prices through excessive issuance of paper currency.[19] It provides fixed international exchange rates between those countries that have adopted it, and thus reduces uncertainty in international trade.[19] Historically, imbalances between price levels in different countries would be partly or wholly offset by an automatic balance-of-payment adjustment mechanism called the "price specie flow mechanism."[19]
3. The gold standard makes chronic deficit spending by governments more difficult, as it prevents governments from inflating away the real value of their debts.[22] A central bank cannot be an unlimited buyer of last resort of government debt. A central bank could not create unlimited quantities of money at will, as there is a limited supply of gold.[19]

Sometimes the answer to problems is NOT printing more paper money...

You think businesses and public places should be allowed to refuse people service because of race (Ron Paul does)? You don't understand history then, or the context of racial hatred, mass violence and the history of oppression and slavery in the South.

I think if a group of tatted-up gang-banging thugs comes into my restaurant, I should have the right to refuse them service, regardless of their race/gender/religion etc.

Why should loyal customers have to eat next to some gangster mean-mugging them while they eat...

If it's about race, then I expect the group to join together and boycott services.

But really, do the laws against racism actually change anything in the same southern towns?

They still have clansmen burning crosses in small towns across the south. Nothing's really changed, besides political correctness.

Why would anyone want to eat in a restaurant they are not really welcome in anyway? Wouldn't they worry about getting their food spit in or something? I am Hispanic and I know I sure wouldn't go eat in some tiny little southern Anglo town, just because civil rights act says they can't be racist; what if they poison my food? Some people are very hateful and more laws don't always fix the problems, if anything shift/redirect them, maybe.


Racism hasn't died, it has just evolved and adapted to fit the politically-correct society we live in. Times change - people don't.

I think it was up to the federal government to intervene with the National Guard though, when the local police were beating black people. That's minimal government. When people are being beaten for no reason by police, I would hope the national guard would consider doing something. I think any minimalist federal government has the duty to protect freedom from oppressive local government.

The 60's were nuts in the south, and ultimately it was the army that made cops stop beating blacks (publicly). Unfortunately that didn't stop the hate that has boiled inside both colors of people over the years.

Ron Paul is an idiot, I'm not really interested in arguing further

Well I'm glad you have your mind made up...

IDK what Paul would bring (as with any politician), but I have my doubts that more freedom and legal drugs could be any worse than what we have going right now.

Think of what way. There's a guy who wants to legalize drugs, and has been saying the same things for 30 years that all the "conservative tea party" idiots are just now starting to pick up this election, there's another George Bush (it's creepy how similar they are...), probably worse, then there's Obama, who has continued the same policies the Bush administration started, and has no intentions of legalizing drugs, despite the problems on the border, and the indisputable fact that the war is a failure on all fronts, and has done nothing good aside from tearing apart families ruining lives.

We live in a 'homeland security' surveillance state thanks to Bush administration's over-zealous use of the Patriot act.

Want to see what's going on INSIDE THE USA 100 miles from the border? The surveillance state has drasticly stepped up I recommend giving my blog a read. Also, CheckpointUSA is a youtube channel you might want to watch a few videos from.

They tend to be nicer to that guy though, I'm guessing it's because he's white, they never seem to harass my white mom. They have cameras all over though so they identify you before you even stop.

That's actually a poor example though, as it's only a 'tactical' checkpoint. The 'permanent' checkpoint is the one I was at in my blog, where it's really hardcore nuts man. The whole "are you a US citizen" crap is just a show so they can get a K9 to circle your car and send you for an X-ray if the K9 alerts (or you just fit the profile they are looking for - young, Hispanic, looks like they party/use drugs. They obviously can run your background too, if they have your information. They also log how often you go each direction past the checkpoint, even though the stop is only one way )

^^ All this = Obama

I can't tell you what Ron Paul will do, but it sounds better than what's going on bro... Seriously, check out my blog and the videos I linked to.

 

[psychomimetic]

^
Ron Paul mostly supports increasing the freedom of companies, not people. He supports some individual liberties, but the stupid shit far outweighs it. And yes, you can easily further destabilize an already unstable economy. That's why I said that it would be especially stupid to go to the gold standard given the fragile state of the current economy.

I don't watch Rachel Maddow or MSNBC, and I think you can do better then to argue by random association. Fascism is an overly harsh and inaccurate word to use and I totally misspoke there. My bad.

What I really meant was Ron Paul's laissez-faire ideas. I consider the idea that increasing the freedom of companies increases the freedom of people to be completely false. In fact, I think it's the opposite and that it is necessary for government to regulate companies to protect the rights of the people. I have big problems with Ron Paul's anti-union and pro-corporate positions. I think deregulation is one of the primary causes, if not the primary cause, that our economy is in the terrible state it is currently in, and I don't see how Ron Paul would even begin to do anything good about that. I don't feel his one or two positions I agree with are anywhere close to making up for the masses of his ideas that I disagree with.

On to the Civil Rights Act-

"It may be true that the law cannot make a man love me, but it can keep him from lynching me, and I think that's pretty
important."
-Martin Luther King, Jr.

How off topic can this thread get? Are we really going to argue about the Civil Rights Act here? The Civil Rights Act doesn't remove the right to refuse service to people, it keeps people from being allowed to refuse service based on race. It asserts the essential humanity of all people. Any resteraunt owner can refuse to serve gang bangers, especially disruptive ones. They can't incite and normalize hateful, bigoted behavior however. And the Civil Rights Movement changed the south in big ways. For instance, the Civil Rights Act for the first time allowed the children of that generation to go to interracial schools. Not only did this vastly improve the education of non-whites, who had been handed the worst in schools previously, but it gave white children first hand experience coexisting with non-white children in a non-hateful environment, something many of them would never have gotten otherwise. If all you hear about non-whites growing up is hate and lies, you're much more likely to grow up a hateful bigot then if you are allowed to discover for yourself that all races are equal.

Attitudes in the South shifted drastically due to the Civil Rights movement and the Civil Rights Act, and that's a fact. The membership of the Klan plummeted after the Civil Rights movement and went back up briefly in the 1980s, then fell again.

I'm from Texas as well and I did all my primary schooling here and still live here. When they stopped integration efforts in Austin the schools became more segregated and now Austin has a terrible school system that's very segregated. I went to several different schools in different parts of the city with different demographics. I saw the individual racism that you are talking about, but the Civil Right Act was geared more towards ending (or at least decreasing) institutional racism then ending racism between people. And what I saw at schools was that when I went to a school that was mostly non-white, the teachers were terrible and not one service provided was as good as when I went to schools with mostly upper class white kids. My elementary school was over 90% Latino and it was terrible academically. My middle school had two programs, one was very academic and mostly upper middle class and white. The other program was for kids from the neighborhood and it was one of the worst schools in the city and mostly black and Latino, and had terrible classes (I took a few at the neighborhood schools). I ended up dropping out of highschool.

My point is that by integrating schools they can help to guarantee that all kids get an equal education and that schools get more equal services. In Austin the good schools were and are in the upper middle class white communities and the bad schools are in the working class non-white communities. I'm sure you heard a lot of racist shit when you were in school, so did I. But ask a non-white person who went to school in the '50s about whether the school's racism then or now was worse and I'm pretty sure they'll say it was worse when non-white people weren't even allowed to go into the good schools.

That's fucked up, but it was 100x worse before the Civil Rights Act when non-white kids weren't even allowed to try and attend the schools that got decent funding. Currently, it's as much or more a class issue then a race issue. The situation has obviously improved, but it could definitely be better and more could be done to decrease racism in the south, I agree with you there.

I can sympathize with you being hispanic and not wanting to eat in a racist restaurant, but how would you feel if you couldn't go into most public bathrooms or use most public water fountains? And when you did the facilities were understocked and under serviced? Or if the law basically allowed people to act racist towards you in a way that could easily end in you being physically harmed? Or if you faced much more difficulties registering to vote then whites? Or if you weren't even allowed to live on one side of town? The Civil Rights Act was an important and needed piece of legislation, created to protect basic human rights and freedoms.

If nothing else, racism became much less socially acceptable after the passage of the Civil Rights Act (which has the effect of making people less racist), non-whites were given equal opportunity to vote, go to school and be free to venture where they please, and legal treatment of non-whites was hugely improved. If you can't see the obvious benefits of those things as far as decreasing racist tendencies and institutional racism, I don't really know what else to say.

I said I wasn't going to get off topic again but I felt I had to defend what I said earlier. If we're going to have a Civil Rights Act debate or a Ron Paul debate, please lets have it in CE&P.

 

[severely etarded]

I believe you and I think equal rights were needed. Ron Paul clarifies that he was against what the civil rights did to property rights, not anything else. I think a true libertarian should be for equal rights of all human beings...

Just to be clear, I don't think Paul will be better than Obama. There's simply no way to know without giving them a shot though. choosing politicians is a crap shoot you're pretty much guaranteed to lose. I wouldn't put faith he will change anything, and I won't be disappointed when they don't keep their promises

I added a little bit to my last post. I recommend checking out the last little bit. It is interesting about the 'Homeland Security' checkpoints, and Obama's role in intensifying them. check out the videos I linked and my blog, and see what you think of the 'improvements' the Obama admin has made to the checkpoints And if you think that's an effective use of tax dollars, paying Border patrol guys to "fuck with" american citizens, in order to find their drugs ... You know how many billions they spend on this shit through DHS. Don't kid yourself, that is not 'security', that is War on Drugs money guised in the national budget as "homeland security"

This is about the war on drugs and my point is that Obama is a fail

 

[Splinterguitar69]

Splinter- Sorry if I came off as a bit of an asshole in the above post, I have a bitch of a hangover from last night and I'm not feeling very good or nice today. Rereading it I feel like it's scattered and a bit dickish, I didn't mean it that way. I still stand by the general ideas I expressed though, but I meant no insult and I feel it comes off as somewhat insulting. It's just cause I feel like shit

No offense taken man. I'm glad we are discussing this, I really am. Anyone who has had these types of convo's with me on here know that I try not to jump straight to "You're just being a dick" when you disagree with me. It's hard to judge someone's tone over the internet.

I guess to clarify my original point since this si about drug policy primarily, RP is the only one willing to change our ridiculous drug laws. And the audacity of our drug laws have hit home and affected my own life in a very negative way, so it's my political "elephant in the room". I had a post earlier that explains the death of an old girlfriend of mine:

"My main reason to support the man IS drug policy. Wanna know why? When she was 18, an old girlfriend of mine died of a fentynol overdose. She thought she bought a bag of heroin. If drugs were legal, she would need an ID saying she is 21 to buy it, which she didn't have. She also would have gotten quality, pure product without fentynol in it, so maybe she wouldn't have overdosed that night. Maybe she also wouldn't have been so embarassed by our "Pro drug war status quo" society and not kept it a secret from everyone, including me. I found out she was doing it when her father called me telling me she overdosed. And maybe...juuuuuuuust maybe.... If she would have decided to go to rehab in a society with sensible drug policy, she could have gotten the REAL help she needed. And may not have died. I don't want our drug policies to be fixed is so I can go behind a gas station and do a bag of blow off a hookers ass. Almost no one on here is that shallow. Including you and myself. Does that sound "stupid" to you? Sure doesn't to me."

That's a large part of why I want to vote Ron Paul. So our drug policies have a chance of being cleaned up and so the least amount of people, parents, friends, and significant others possible go through the hell of what I went through. Plus, I was caught with a bowl with marijuana resin in it that wasn't even mine. Now I can't get student loans to go to college and have a productive life and provide for a family. I never deserved any of what happened. Neither did my dear old friend. It all could have been prevented if we had decent drug laws.

 

[LogicSoDeveloped]

I can't get scholarships because of a bust a few months ago. Luckily I can afford college anyway but if I couldn't, I'd be in trouble like many other people who just want to enjoy themselves. I got caught with a good amount of pot. Harmless fucking pot. I don't understand how it makes sense to encourage me to "do better" by reducing my quality of life...

 

[psychomimetic]

^I'm actually in a similar situation, I'm currently moving towards going to University having been doing community college part time for a little while, but I have a possession arrest for 31 grams of pot, which in Austin is a class B misdemeanor. Luckily, I'm in Austin and I'm white so I got it reduced to class C, didn't do time and I got it so that 2 years after the arrest (next fall) I can get it expunged from my record and act like it never happened. Not sure about my financial situation though, seeing as I can't come close to affording the ridiculous prices of American Universities. I might have to wait an extra year to start at University, depending on where I go, just cause of a bag of flowers that I had that were going to make me laugh and eat and socialize and feel nice. Utterly ridiculous.

To etarded-

With the stuff about the civil rights act I was responding to splinter saying he wouldn't have supported it. And as far as the stuff about private property, I think that integration in the south had to be forced. I don't think that people should have the right to treat other people as subhuman, even on their property. But then again I'm a dirty socialist who doesn't respect private property in the first place

I definitely am not one of the Obama groupies, I didn't even vote for him in 2008 (nor did I vote republican, of course). I think that as politicians go he's not terrible but not great, I disagree with most of his ideas but I can respect his intellect and I agree at least partially with a lot of what he says. He's not been a good president as far as social liberties, but no president for a long time has been. We're both Texas residents, I've experienced the oh so wonderful homeland security stuff under Obama. He's under a lot of pressure to "secure" the border, which is just a guise to try and get more money and more arrests and erode social liberties. I don't think Ron Paul would be better then Obama on issues of the border, but I have no way of knowing that. Anyway, I hate those fucking border checkpoints and the racist border patrol that comes with them, I've come close to arrest in them twice. Remember when you could just drive over to Mexico and you didn't even have to go through a border checkpoint or have a passport? The good ol' days, I miss being able to freely travel to Mexico.

We can definitely agree that Obama has been a failure on the drug war and many other issues. My argument was more that I don't think the political climate exists in the US for any president to legalize drugs, even if they really really wanted to. There's not enough public and business support. It's our job to try and get more public support behind creating social change. In that respect I think the drug legalization movement could learn much from the civil rights movement of the 1950s and 60s.



To Splinter-

I'm sorry for your loss, I've known people that died that I think might have lived if it wasn't for the legal climate here, the drug war has claimed many innocent lives. At the same time, I think that we should broaden our sights, I can agree with Ron Paul about the wars but not foreign policy in general and I can agree with him on drug policy but not domestic policy in general. I agree with him on a couple issues and disagree with everything else he says. I think he would be bad for the country and I don't think he could legalize drugs even if he wanted to. As such, I won't support him.

I think that drug laws are absolutely the #1 civil rights issue facing America and maybe the world today. But I'm not willing to sacrifice all my other political beliefs just to legalize drugs, and I think that keeping the economy afloat (if possible) is the most important domestic issue, trumping drug laws at the moment. Legalizing drugs would improve the economy, but I think Paul's other economic ideas would fuck it up and destabilize it further. I want a president that will build infrastructure, not dismantle it. I also know a lot of people who would be in serious trouble, and some who might die, if social service programs like medicare, food stamps and welfare are cut like Ron Paul wants to cut them. I believe strongly in public services, and wouldn't sacrifice them for drug legalization. So while I know people who are harmed by the drug laws, I know probably an equal amount of people that would be harmed by Ron Paul's economic ideas.

If a leftist or a moderate that I can mostly agree with or at least agree with a lot of their ideas, who I believe to be a reasonable person of high intellect, runs and supports legalizing drugs, I will totally vote for them. As of now I vote for a 3rd party most elections. In the upcoming election I will vote for Obama though because I think he is intelligent, reasonable and pretty honest for a politician (which isn't exactly great), and I want the GOP to lose because I view the GOP candidates as stone cold crazy.

 

[severely etarded]

My argument was more that I don't think the political climate exists in the US for any president to legalize drugs, even if they really really wanted to. There's not enough public and business support. It's our job to try and get more public support behind creating social change. In that respect I think the drug legalization movement could learn much from the civil rights movement of the 1950s and 60s.

IDK... Times are changing. People are getting wiser. It's a known historical fact the US faced a similar problem during alcohol prohibition (people dying from contaminated alcohol, cartels selling the whiskey. Did you know even the same Mexican cartels (Sinaloas and the Gulf Cartel) used to bootleg back during prohibition?.

1. We have a historic precedent already of legalizing a popular drug and the benefits that came from it's legalization.

2. More and more people are getting fed up with the prison system paroling fucking sex offenders to make room for drug offenders. More and more people are seeing that locking up drug offenders takes up room in prison that needs to be there for sex and violent offenders. Phillip Garrido? Anthony Sowell?

3. Paul is painted out by mainstream conservatives like Fox news to be some guy you vote for if you're a "pot-smoking hippie". The thing is, somehow, he's still kind of popular for someone the television usually ignores.

Point is, there sure is quite a bit of support for somebody who flat out says there should be no drug laws.

I think if a candidate who openly supports full legalization actually wins, it should speak volumes on the state of the public's general consensus on legalization...

I think legalization may not be the most popular idea, but the most conservative of all conservative southern baptists have to agree, it's much better to clear the space in prison and the court systems by drug offenders, to prosecute violent and sex offenses. I think everyone sees the war on drugs can never be won.

You'd be surprised how many older white conservatives who do not use drugs realize what's important.

 

[psychomimetic]

^Times definitely are changing, but I think it will take a large movement to change drug laws, or at least a large majority of voters demanding it. I think a lot of people support legalizing cannabis, but few people support legalizing heroin, cocaine, meth, or even most psychedelics. More and more people are looking at it in a different way, but I don't think nearly enough people support legalizing drugs to actually get them legalized.

A lot of people see that the drug war doesn't work. But given that the people of California didn't even vote to legalize marijuana, I don't see LSD or MDMA, let alone harder drugs, being legal in Texas anytime soon. I just don't. The people calling for prohibition to end are a relatively tiny portion of the constituency of most American politicians. The drug war is a multi-billion dollar business a lot of powerful people and most of the government have an interest in sustaining.

I hope I'm proven wrong and drugs get legalized soon. I don't think the government will give up that easy though. I think it will take not only the president, but a significant portion of congress and public leaders calling for an end to prohibition to end it. Most people in America don't care very much about the drug war, and of those that care most don't support full drug legalization.

A growing number of people are opposing drug prohibition though, and change is coming. I just don't see it coming in the form of Ron Paul.

 

[severely etarded]

If he actually does get elected though, it would be an interesting statement from the American people. It would be a statement that says "We picked a guy whose campaign was largely based on his views against drug laws" :D

If he was elected, it would be a big sign of hope IMO. It shows people are willing to pick somebody who flat out says, over and over, there should be no drug laws. That's a big step.

TBH, even though people are against drugs, I think obama deliver a convincing speech based on factual reasons the war on drugs should end, all he'd have to say is all the logical reasons I mentioned.

Nobody likes pedophiles getting out of prison early to make room for drug offenders. Nobody is that blind.

Like I said, there's already been a historical precedent with prohibition of alcohol, and that worked well.

Now, with the border/drug problems, budget crisis', there has never been a more prime time to try to sell the public on the indisputable FACTS.

 

[Addyman]

The CONSTITUTION is the supreme law of the land

ANYWAYS, not the point

I live 15 minutes from the border of mexico *el centro, california*

I can not begin to describe how easy it is to buy PURE methamphetamine here
It is actually way harder to find Adderall sources LOLOL

 

[psychomimetic]

If he actually does get elected though, it would be an interesting statement from the American people. It would be a statement that says "We picked a guy whose campaign was largely based on his views against drug laws" :D

If he was elected, it would be a big sign of hope IMO. It shows people are willing to pick somebody who flat out says, over and over, there should be no drug laws. That's a big step.

TBH, even though people are against drugs, I think obama deliver a convincing speech based on factual reasons the war on drugs should end, all he'd have to say is all the logical reasons I mentioned.

Nobody likes pedophiles getting out of prison early to make room for drug offenders. Nobody is that blind.

Like I said, there's already been a historical precedent with prohibition of alcohol, and that worked well.

Now, with the border/drug problems, budget crisis', there has never been a more prime time to try to sell the public on the indisputable FACTS.

The thing about prohibition is that alcohol was used by most people before prohibition and alcohol is a part of the American and European cultural identities. Other drugs that have been made illegal have gained users after being made illegal, and are relatively new so there isn't cultural backing for it. Wine for instance, is a part of Christian (especially Catholic) and Jewish religious tradition. Also at that time most voters were from European descent and alcohol is embedded in many European cultures.

Prohibition sets a precedent to a degree, but the American populace has always accepted alcohol use far more then it accepts the use of illegal drugs now.