Author Topic: RAND PAUL for 2016??  (Read 6796 times)

Offline BILLY Defiant

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4668
  • Gender: Male
  • In harms way of the furies at a reasonable price
Re: RAND PAUL for 2016??
« Reply #105 on: December 06, 2012, 03:30:51 PM »
After all the posts about pot use,gay marriage etc. somehow my asking about Rand Paul got lost somehwere--i don't like to see us conservatives(whats left of us) argue among ourselves. come to think of it--New Mexico Gov. Susana Martinez is looking better and better but if she has to go up against Hillary she better be prepared.


Bingo....like I said, the issues are irrelevant what the idiots in our soceity vote for is somebody they like, this last election proves that beyond a doubt.

Billy
Evil operates best when it is disguised for what it truly is.

Online Solar

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 57085
  • Gender: Male
Re: RAND PAUL for 2016??
« Reply #106 on: December 06, 2012, 05:43:54 PM »
It would be a pleasure.

The very same properties that are listed here describe legal drugs sold by taxing paying, patent holding pharmaceutical companies.

So that doesnt fly.

There are many things that are bad for us, such as cigarettes, alcohol and fast food, yet the government leaves decisions regarding these substances up to the individual. At one point, the government became so zealous as to prohibit alcohol. But that created a black market and the crime and violence that comes with it. And the product became uncertain. Most was water down or cut, and some was toxic enough to kill people. And it did.

The government ended its bone headed policy and the mob lost revenue and power as a result. People stopped dying from poorly made spirits, and the black market in spirits ceased.

There is a parallel here to drugs.

There was a time when cocaine and heroin was sold legally, in tonics and other remedies. Dosage was considered. Quality standards were followed, at least for the time.

Meth and crack didn't exist. And intravenous heroin use and the debilitating effects that follow, was avoided and minimized.

The black market flips this script. Gangs and criminal groups take over production and they dont care about quality control. They do want to increase potency, with little regard to overdoses down the line.

Incentives become distorted and the drug becomes a monster compared to the free market variety.

Lets not pin the consequence of decades of black markets on the intrinsic nature of certain natural substances themselves.
That is half true. It would decrease price. But availability would fall. Your kids will tell you that prescription drugs, pot and other substances are easier to obtain than alcohol. I can attest to this, from my days in high school, some 10 years ago.

But lets not skip over prices falling. That puts a dent into profits. And it redistributes income from small time criminal organizations to large scale corporate conglomerates. The gangs cannot beat the efficiency and price competition that a major commercial enterprise can mount.

Prices fall and the margins on a small scale operation cannot over come the efficiencies gained in large scale production.

This is good for it substitutes a peaceful and contractual market transaction for the previous violence ridden black market that existed in prohibition.

And in this world toxicity, dosage and other considerations, such a legal purchase age, are huge, for this is the realm of legal recourse, as in any other commercial activity.
Not all drug users do, but many do, due to the high costs of drugs, which is a function of the law making their purchase, distribution and production illegal.

That is patent nonsense.

A black market exists where there is a profit to be made in selling something. It is no different than any other business.

When the market is able to organize resources on a commercial level, the price will drop and the margins will be such that there will be no profit incentive to enter in this market.

Alcohol is not sold in unlimited quantities to all ages and yet there is no thriving black market for alcohol to supply the latent "youth demand."

Sure. And they incentivize others to sell and produce them.

It all depends on your risk preferences.
It also accounts for the incredible profits earned by those who ignore the law.
Lets get one thing straight.

Prohibitions create black markets. Black markets create obscene profits. Obscene profits lure criminals. Criminals gain obscene profits and form cartels and criminal organizations. And then criminals use violence to enforce contracts and seek retribution.

Prohibition creates violence where it does not have to be.

And secondly if I am open to questioning the legitimacy of US law, why in the world would anyone think I would hold some UN Treaty sacrosanct?

Just curious TL, using your rationale of legalizing alcohol, the same could be said about meth, cocaine, bathsalts LSD, etc considering they too can become poisonous depending on the idiot making them.
So how do you justify this position?
Really just curious, because you claim the Govt leaves cigarettes, fastfood, difference being, those are not mind altering.

So why not legalize the harder drugs?
I'm not advocating in anyway...
Koolaid is for kids, TEA is for adults

Offline kramarat

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5192
  • Gender: Male
Re: RAND PAUL for 2016??
« Reply #107 on: December 07, 2012, 04:15:52 AM »
Just curious TL, using your rationale of legalizing alcohol, the same could be said about meth, cocaine, bathsalts LSD, etc considering they too can become poisonous depending on the idiot making them.
So how do you justify this position?
Really just curious, because you claim the Govt leaves cigarettes, fastfood, difference being, those are not mind altering.

So why not legalize the harder drugs?
I'm not advocating in anyway...

Just butting in here.

I think the libertarianism that TL espouses, probably would have worked out fine if it was practiced from the outset, and it falls in line with what the founders envisioned, I believe.

The problem is, that it wasn't. The government, particularly through the 20th century, pushed itself further and further into the business of the people, As a result, we have tens of millions of people that have no education, no skills, and are completely unable to feed, clothe and house themselves. They are dependent on government, not just for the little bit of money they get, but for everything about their lives.

It's a shame too. These people have no handicaps, and yet the government has managed to strip them of all self respect, dignity, drive to do better.......................Freedom. Many of these people have no idea what freedom is. It has been redefined as a right to more handouts, free birth control and abortions. That's the entire list!

Much like North Korea couldn't do an overnight shift to a system based on freedom, without the population crumbling under the weight of it due to it's unfamiliarity, the US has also reached a point, that a sudden shift to our founding principles, (that we never should have deviated from), would leave millions of of people not knowing what to do.

As we saw in the aftermath of Katrina, and due to government social experimentation and tampering, people have even lost the basic human survival instinct. They sit and wait.

If we started on reversing this today, it would take a generation to undo it. Ain't gonna happen though. Obama has even struck down Clinton's successful welfare to work program, and is working diligently to create millions more of these people.

Had we stuck to the Ron Paul style of libertarianism from the beginning, we would have a self reliant, educated, common sense citizenry, and drug laws would not be necessary. But that's not the way it happened. A sudden change back to the way it always should have been, would be a disaster.

Offline Yawn

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3262
Re: RAND PAUL for 2016??
« Reply #108 on: December 07, 2012, 05:06:45 AM »
I think the libertarianism that TL espouses, probably would have worked out fine if it was practiced from the outset, and it falls in line with what the founders envisioned, I believe.

I'll admit I know next to NOTHING about his precious drug laws, but does the federal government have anything to do with him smoking this important product (sarcasm) in his mom's basement?

Aren't we confusing things a little?  Isn't it his STATE and the local authorities that'll come and "commit violence" (sarcasm) against him by putting him in a "cage"   :lol: aka TAKE AWAY HIS FREEDOM??????  (yes, it is a JUST punishment).

And does ANYONE really get jail time for minor USE anymore??  I didn't think that happens anyway. Does it?  If so, it would be good news for someone I know who needs to get rid of her nightmare roommate. I told her this is her way out since it is still ILLEGAL in Michigan without a prescription.  I did tell her to go and talk to the police and use this (she smokes that stuff in her apartment and my girlfriend has medical problems that makes this stuff VERY bad).

Offline JustKari

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1904
  • Gender: Female
Re: RAND PAUL for 2016??
« Reply #109 on: December 07, 2012, 05:20:54 AM »
I'll admit I know next to NOTHING about his precious drug laws, but does the federal government have anything to do with him smoking this important product (sarcasm) in his mom's basement?

Aren't we confusing things a little?  Isn't it his STATE and the local authorities that'll come and "commit violence" (sarcasm) against him by putting him in a "cage"   :lol: aka TAKE AWAY HIS FREEDOM??????  (yes, it is a JUST punishment).

And does ANYONE really get jail time for minor USE anymore??  I didn't think that happens anyway. Does it?  If so, it would be good news for someone I know who needs to get rid of her nightmare roommate. I told her this is her way out since it is still ILLEGAL in Michigan without a prescription.  I did tell her to go and talk to the police and use this (she smokes that stuff in her apartment and my girlfriend has medical problems that makes this stuff VERY bad).

She may want to move out first.  Whether you are arrested or not is dependent on the amour you have in your possession at the time of discovery.  Use/possession is a misdemeanor, possession with the intent to sell (measured in oz.), is a felony.

Offline kramarat

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5192
  • Gender: Male
Re: RAND PAUL for 2016??
« Reply #110 on: December 07, 2012, 05:31:17 AM »
I'll admit I know next to NOTHING about his precious drug laws, but does the federal government have anything to do with him smoking this important product (sarcasm) in his mom's basement?

Aren't we confusing things a little?  Isn't it his STATE and the local authorities that'll come and "commit violence" (sarcasm) against him by putting him in a "cage"   :lol: aka TAKE AWAY HIS FREEDOM??????  (yes, it is a JUST punishment).

And does ANYONE really get jail time for minor USE anymore??  I didn't think that happens anyway. Does it?  If so, it would be good news for someone I know who needs to get rid of her nightmare roommate. I told her this is her way out since it is still ILLEGAL in Michigan without a prescription.  I did tell her to go and talk to the police and use this (she smokes that stuff in her apartment and my girlfriend has medical problems that makes this stuff VERY bad).

And does ANYONE really get jail time for minor USE anymore??

I don't know, but I don't think so. I think most states basically ignore use or possession of small amounts of weed. Maybe a small fine. Which sort of makes TL's point.

I don't see any major ramifications coming to the states that recently legalized pot. The people that smoked it before, will continue to smoke it. I would imagine that there are provisions against use by, or providing it to minors, as well as laws against driving under the influence.

I also don't think that anyone that is hanging out and getting stoned all day would have any interest at all in being on this site and debating the issue. :rolleyes:

When I turn on the local news and see the horrible things that people are doing to others, and knowing that jails are already overcrowded, I don't have a problem with the legalization of weed. That doesn't mean that I just want to get high. It means that there are some really bad people out there, and dwindling jail space should be used for them. Not people that actually do just want to sit home and smoke pot.

Offline Yawn

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3262
Re: RAND PAUL for 2016??
« Reply #111 on: December 07, 2012, 05:59:18 AM »
Quote
I don't know, but I don't think so. I think most states basically ignore use or possession of small amounts of weed. Maybe a small fine. Which sort of makes TL's point.

Actually, it makes MY point and renders his feigned "outrage" moot.  I know Ann Arbor ignores it as a minor user, still it is ILLEGAL and my GF has a growing problem with this roommate she took on and hasn't been able to remove her without going through a drawn out eviction process (she's not even on the lease and she cannot throw her out).

THIS is my only concern about this irrelevant issue. I'm hoping she can use the fact that this roommate smoking this ILLEGAL substance in HER apartment as leverage to throw her out.  With her medical condition (autoimmune disease caused by celiac disease) I would think she could use this to have this woman removed.

Offline kramarat

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5192
  • Gender: Male
Re: RAND PAUL for 2016??
« Reply #112 on: December 07, 2012, 06:06:29 AM »
Actually, it makes MY point and renders his "outrage" moot.  I know Ann Arbor ignores it as a minor user, still it is ILLEGAL and my GF has a growing problem with this roommate she took on and hasn't been able to remove her without going through a drawn out eviction process (she's not even on the lease and she cannot throw her out).

THIS is my only concern about this irrelevant issue. I'm hoping she can use the fact that this roommate smoking this ILLEGAL substance in HER apartment as leverage to throw her out.  Wit her medical condition (autoimmune disease caused by celiac disease) I would think she could use this to have this woman removed.

I think a health issue would be her only course of action. I doubt that turning the roommate in for smoking alone would get any response.

Also, if the apartment complex has a provision against smoking indoors, it might work, but it might also get your GF in trouble. Is subletting allowed?

Offline Yawn

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3262
Re: RAND PAUL for 2016??
« Reply #113 on: December 07, 2012, 06:24:52 AM »

Also, if the apartment complex has a provision against smoking indoors, it might work, but it might also get your GF in trouble. Is subletting allowed?

That's her problem. The complex knows about the roommate and that it was a trial for a couple months to make sure it worked out, so they're sort of okay with it,  but she had one before and it didn't work out either and she's afraid that complaints to the office will start turning them against her.  That's why I told her to just talk to the police and be honest about everything and use her medical condition and the fact that she's smoking the stuff in her apartment as her way out of this mess. I think they would be sympathetic. 

Online Solar

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 57085
  • Gender: Male
Re: RAND PAUL for 2016??
« Reply #114 on: December 07, 2012, 06:31:16 AM »
That's her problem. The complex knows about the roommate and that it was a trial for a couple months to make sure it worked out, so they're sort of okay with it,  but she had one before and it didn't work out either and she's afraid that complaints to the office will start turning them against her.  That's why I told her to just talk to the police and be honest about everything and use her medical condition and the fact that she's smoking the stuff in her apartment as her way out of this mess. I think they would be sympathetic.
They'll ask for proof.
She needs a doctors recommendation that she avoid certain substances, then she would have some ammo.
Without proof of her claim, she just looks like an angry roommate.
Koolaid is for kids, TEA is for adults

Offline Yawn

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3262
Re: RAND PAUL for 2016??
« Reply #115 on: December 07, 2012, 06:43:02 AM »
I told her to stealthily snap a picture with her cell phone and know where she keeps the stuff and not to make a big deal about it except to ask her to stop smoking the stuff in the apartment since it violates her lease.

She's told me forever that she can't be around the stuff, but I'll tell her to call her doctor about it to get something in writing.

Offline kramarat

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5192
  • Gender: Male
Re: RAND PAUL for 2016??
« Reply #116 on: December 07, 2012, 06:45:26 AM »
That's her problem. The complex knows about the roommate and that it was a trial for a couple months to make sure it worked out, so they're sort of okay with it,  but she had one before and it didn't work out either and she's afraid that complaints to the office will start turning them against her.  That's why I told her to just talk to the police and be honest about everything and use her medical condition and the fact that she's smoking the stuff in her apartment as her way out of this mess. I think they would be sympathetic.

Doubtful. If the police don't catch the girl in the act, it's hearsay, and there's nothing they can do.

Also. Your GF is the person on the lease, so if a marijuana bust did happen, she would be in hot water, because it's her apartment, which makes her legally responsible.

Not a good situation.

The best way you could help your GF, would be to hold very vocal prayer meetings over there every night until it drives the roommate nuts, and she leaves on her own. :lol:

Not a good situation.

Offline TowardLiberty

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 827
  • Gender: Male
Re: RAND PAUL for 2016??
« Reply #117 on: December 07, 2012, 06:47:08 AM »
Just curious TL, using your rationale of legalizing alcohol, the same could be said about meth, cocaine, bathsalts LSD, etc considering they too can become poisonous depending on the idiot making them.
So how do you justify this position?
Really just curious, because you claim the Govt leaves cigarettes, fastfood, difference being, those are not mind altering.

So why not legalize the harder drugs?
I'm not advocating in anyway...

Good question, why not?

I know that when Bayer was selling heroin it was a much safer substance.

As an individualist and an anarchist I only support laws dealing with property rights violations. 
Only the individual thinks. Only the individual reasons. Only the individual acts. Ludwig von Mises

Offline kramarat

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5192
  • Gender: Male
Re: RAND PAUL for 2016??
« Reply #118 on: December 07, 2012, 06:57:19 AM »
Good question, why not?

I know that when Bayer was selling heroin it was a much safer substance.

As an individualist and an anarchist I only support laws dealing with property rights violations.

What a wonderful world that would be. :popcorn:

No speed limits, no traffic laws. No laws against any drugs or driving while on them. No laws against sex with minors of any age, as long as it was consensual.

You sure do have a lot of faith in human nature to always do the right thing. It's not something I share.

Offline TowardLiberty

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 827
  • Gender: Male
Re: RAND PAUL for 2016??
« Reply #119 on: December 07, 2012, 06:57:25 AM »
I'll admit I know next to NOTHING about his precious drug laws, but does the federal government have anything to do with him smoking this important product (sarcasm) in his mom's basement?

Aren't we confusing things a little?  Isn't it his STATE and the local authorities that'll come and "commit violence" (sarcasm) against him by putting him in a "cage"   :lol: aka TAKE AWAY HIS FREEDOM??????  (yes, it is a JUST punishment).

And does ANYONE really get jail time for minor USE anymore??  I didn't think that happens anyway. Does it?  If so, it would be good news for someone I know who needs to get rid of her nightmare roommate. I told her this is her way out since it is still ILLEGAL in Michigan without a prescription.  I did tell her to go and talk to the police and use this (she smokes that stuff in her apartment and my girlfriend has medical problems that makes this stuff VERY bad).

Here you go again acting like a child, insinuating that I am pot smoker and that I live in my mom's basement.

Well my friend, you are wrong on both counts, just as you are wrong about the fact that people are no longer jailed for "use" or "possession." They most certainly are. Maybe not in all states, but here in Texas it is different.

Let me remind you of something because you seem to be a little dense.

This has nothing to do with me, or punishing me. Stop making this about me.

Grow up.

And putting people in cages does take away their freedom. For one they aren't free to leave!

Perhaps you need to look into what is meant by the word "freedom."

And the part about your daughters roommate goes right to heart of your character or lack there of.

You are willing to see the state get involved in a personal matter when your daughter could simply move out or ask the other person to. No need to bring legalized violence into the picture. No need to start the ball rolling on a process that could land the other person in a cage.

If you had any sense of decency the idea of caging humans for drug possession or use would disgust you down to your core.

As it is you get a strange tingle up your leg, a la Chris Mathews, just thinking about putting me in a cage.

Well no offense, but I yawn at such arguments.

Perhaps that is where your handle came from?
« Last Edit: December 07, 2012, 07:15:04 AM by TowardLiberty »
Only the individual thinks. Only the individual reasons. Only the individual acts. Ludwig von Mises

 

Powered by EzPortal