Slog
News & ArtsFriday, May 6, 2011
2012 Best Part of Last Night's Republican Debate: Ron Paul on Heroin
Posted by Eli Sanders on Fri, May 6, 2011 at 6:00 AM
And the best part of the best part:
As Ron Paul starts in on his heroin lecture he's basically being laughed off the South Carolina stage. Then, in just two minutes and thirty seconds, he manages to gently point out the giant contradiction in a bunch of small-government, freedom-first conservatives cheering for government to interfere in people's private lives.
Now, this kind of contradiction isn't news or a revelation to anyone who pays attention to politics. But it's not easy to explain to a crowd like this—not easy to basically tell a bunch of South Carolina conservatives that they're being unthinkingly inconsistent. Ron Paul does that, and at the end of his two minutes and thirty seconds he essentially has a hall full of Republicans cheering for heroin legalization.
USA!
3
Let's not forget that that flip side of legalized heroin for these people is that when someone ODs you leave them to die.
5
Right, none of these good, upstanding Republican citizens would use heroin, even if it was legal. But you'd have Democrats offing themselves left and right!
*applause*
*applause*
7
That was awesome. Good for Ron Paul, seriously. Though I disagree with his pandering about "states' rights" (I don't want my state impinging on my liberty any more than my nation), it's still a good message and I'm glad these "conservatives" are hearing it.
9
Ron Paul is a thousand times more dangerous to the well-being of the US than Osama bin Laden ever was.
10
Half of the people in the South* are already hooked on Oxcontin or some other legally prescribed opioid drug.
*Probably 75% of the audience, Rs love their oxys.
*Probably 75% of the audience, Rs love their oxys.
13
It's easy to argue that heroin should be legal "if states want to permit it," because I seriously doubt that any state would want to permit it.
That said, as conservatives go, libertarians are my favorite flavor, because they recognize that people who are for small government don't have any business legislating what constitutes virute and what constitutes vice.
That said, as conservatives go, libertarians are my favorite flavor, because they recognize that people who are for small government don't have any business legislating what constitutes virute and what constitutes vice.
15
The states rights argument is such a cop-out. If government shouldn't be legislating something, it simply shouldn't be legislating that thing. His argument doesn't really say anything about what the government should and shouldn't be able to legislate, it merely calls for the perhaps more traditional but no less antiquated vision of each state as a sovereign nation. With the exact same affordances in legislation. Way to make a stand there, buddy.
16
Read the constitution. Ron Paul thinks that these and other issues should be decided by individual states because the US Constitution specifically says so. This is not Ron Paul's new-fangled idea. Its the law. Get a clue people.
17
I liked how they lumped in gay marriage with heroin use and prostitution. Very nice, Fox. Very nice.
19
Legalizing heroin would also reduce the profits that the Taliban use to arm and organize themselves, which would flush nicely with our getting the fuck out of Afghanistan and Pakistan.
Let the free market sort out whose going to build and secure the Trans-Afghanistan pipeline. If we're still occupying those countries in 2012 I could see myself voting for Ron Paul on that issue alone.
Let the free market sort out whose going to build and secure the Trans-Afghanistan pipeline. If we're still occupying those countries in 2012 I could see myself voting for Ron Paul on that issue alone.
22
Ron Paul makes for a nice scapegoat when one wants to make a point of how "extremely absurd" the opposition is, but fundamentally, his positions are closer to what our country was founded upon than any of the other candidates. You may not agree with his entirely hands-off approach to business regulation (I don't) or his desire to end the Federal Banks interference and gaming with our monetary supply (I feel that basic, open manipulation is useful - at the very least, critical analysis is needed) but what's he arguing, really? That everyone in this country should have the right to decide what's best for them and as long as you aren't harming others, go for it. That the Federal government has a clearly defined, minimal role that is has overstepped for the last century or more and by playing the federal tax shell game, has forced most of the states to conform to its whim and fancy in order to receive funds.
Congressmen seem to think their job is solely to create NEW laws, as if adding more and more restrictions to the books is what makes for a free society. We argue about higher vs. lower taxes, but we're arguing about the wrong side of the debate. What are we getting for that money, and what is the trade-off?
Are you safer because the TSA makes you take off your shoes before you get on an airplane? Are you more well-off financially because the Fed manipulates interest rates to encourage investment or saving? Are you satisfied losing your college grant because you smoked some marijuana? Is this really the best use of our tax dollars and government? Sure, we can joke about how WE'D be able to handle liberty just fine, but those moe-rons in the flyover states would just go feral, but without that freedom to fuck up, we're not really free.
Congressmen seem to think their job is solely to create NEW laws, as if adding more and more restrictions to the books is what makes for a free society. We argue about higher vs. lower taxes, but we're arguing about the wrong side of the debate. What are we getting for that money, and what is the trade-off?
Are you safer because the TSA makes you take off your shoes before you get on an airplane? Are you more well-off financially because the Fed manipulates interest rates to encourage investment or saving? Are you satisfied losing your college grant because you smoked some marijuana? Is this really the best use of our tax dollars and government? Sure, we can joke about how WE'D be able to handle liberty just fine, but those moe-rons in the flyover states would just go feral, but without that freedom to fuck up, we're not really free.
24
@20 Not exactly, his view is that you can do what you like so long as you're not harming others.
@21 I'd rather have the abortion fight on a state level than an American empire bombing women's vaginas, themselves and their families. Which is worse, in your opinion?
Of course, I voted in the last election for someone who promised to end the occupation of Iraq. I'm still waiting to take that one to the bank.
@21 I'd rather have the abortion fight on a state level than an American empire bombing women's vaginas, themselves and their families. Which is worse, in your opinion?
Of course, I voted in the last election for someone who promised to end the occupation of Iraq. I'm still waiting to take that one to the bank.
25
@22, you are high. What the founding fathers wanted has no relevance in a modern economy, and what the federal reserve does with the money supply is not "gaming". It's called management, and while kook libertarians think that the way to move the economy is to meditate on the magical properties of a pretty metal dug up out of the earth, that's not how it works. Managing the money supply is what makes the modern economy possible; otherwise, how could value enter the economy? If you came up with an idea that made a massive profit, where does that money come from? Not from a hole in the ground in South Africa, that's for damn sure.
Ron Paul's economic ideas are beyond stupid. They make about as much sense as a federal law requiring everyone to wear only one shoe. They are not a part of any serious discussion about economic issues, period.
Ron Paul's economic ideas are beyond stupid. They make about as much sense as a federal law requiring everyone to wear only one shoe. They are not a part of any serious discussion about economic issues, period.
26
Cain is the only threat amongst this crew. He's charming, intelligent and effective, ands pairs his business savvy with conservative christian credentials, a combination that none of the other candidates come even close to matching.
His policy ideas are disturbingly regressive, but they fall right in line with what the shriveled husk of the Tea Party wants to hear.
His policy ideas are disturbingly regressive, but they fall right in line with what the shriveled husk of the Tea Party wants to hear.
27
@22: Your first paragraph is false. He is not arguing that "everyone in this country should have the right to decide what's best for them and as long as you aren't harming others, go for it." He's not actually coming out and saying "Let's end drug prohibition, let's acknowledge gay marriages, etc." He's saying that you have the right to vote and potentially impose your views on those issues upon other people in your state. He's NOT in favor of JS Mill-style perfect liberty, he's in favor of laissez-faire democracy. Those are contradictory ideas.
28
@20 his claim is that you're taking away the liberty of the unborn child by aborting it. He also opposes the death penalty, so it's kind of consistent.
30
If Ron Paul had his way, there would be no federal grants for education. How is it better to have no help to go to college whether you smoke pot or not?
I personally don't agree with the rule that anyone who uses drugs gets kicked off the federal education grant dole, but it's the feds' money, and they get to decide who is eligible for it.
Are you satisfied losing your college grant because you smoked some marijuana?
If Ron Paul had his way, there would be no federal grants for education. How is it better to have no help to go to college whether you smoke pot or not?
I personally don't agree with the rule that anyone who uses drugs gets kicked off the federal education grant dole, but it's the feds' money, and they get to decide who is eligible for it.
31
@30: NO. The feds work for US. That's our money we are ENTRUSTING to the feds, and we have a responsibility and a right to tell them what to do with it.
34
@31 and 32,
And we elect our representatives to decide what to do with it. The majority of Americans either like federal grants to be withheld from drug users or they don't give enough of a shit to do anything about it.
My point still stands. Ron Paul wants the government to do exactly NOTHING for the people, no matter whether we do drugs or stay clean, no matter whether we're rich or poor, and #22 is still a twit.
And we elect our representatives to decide what to do with it. The majority of Americans either like federal grants to be withheld from drug users or they don't give enough of a shit to do anything about it.
My point still stands. Ron Paul wants the government to do exactly NOTHING for the people, no matter whether we do drugs or stay clean, no matter whether we're rich or poor, and #22 is still a twit.
35
Also, government trying to tell people on the dole how to live is one of the stated reasons why libertarians oppose social programs. They think the loss of liberty isn't worth the supposed benefits. Anytime the government is giving someone welfare, food stamps, or educational grants, some asshole (or a multitude of assholes) is going to try to interfere in that person's life. Whether it's a mandate not to use drugs, or a prohibition on using food stamps for junk food, or a rule forbidding welfare recipients from saving any money from one month to the next, someone is going to try to tell recipients of taxpayer money how to live their lives, sometimes out of a desire to do good, sometimes just because conservatives resent any money going to the less fortunate. Good luck finding any social program without that kind of interference.
I'm of the opinion that the benefits of providing for the poor or giving kids an opportunity for education outweigh the costs of that kind of nanny state-ism.
Ron Paul disagrees, which is his right, but his solution is to eliminate the social safety net entirely. #22 is complaining about a condition of educational grants which wouldn't exist in a Ron Paul world because educational grants wouldn't exist in a Ron Paul world.
I'm of the opinion that the benefits of providing for the poor or giving kids an opportunity for education outweigh the costs of that kind of nanny state-ism.
Ron Paul disagrees, which is his right, but his solution is to eliminate the social safety net entirely. #22 is complaining about a condition of educational grants which wouldn't exist in a Ron Paul world because educational grants wouldn't exist in a Ron Paul world.
36
@35- "I'm of the opinion that the benefits of providing for the poor or giving kids an opportunity for education outweigh the costs of that kind of nanny state-ism."
Which is throwing the baby out with the bath water. Just because you've got bath water doesn't mean you have to toss the baby out, and babies are much better when you bathe them regularly.
Which is throwing the baby out with the bath water. Just because you've got bath water doesn't mean you have to toss the baby out, and babies are much better when you bathe them regularly.
37
Fnarf is right, as usual. And Westlake, @22: that tired, bullshit argument is true only if Ron Paul agrees that he should be required by law to undergo and pay for a liver transplant to save the life of some stranger in Fallujah.
38
I think a better point that should be made is, how much heroine are we [humans] using today? More than ever before, mainly because we "let" the Afghans grow it. Even though it's been highly illegal all this time, and they've caught and put behind bars for long periods of time a record amount of drug users, we still use more heroine today than in any other time in the history of humanity. More importantly, why did people laugh when Paul suggested removing the law would send them all racing to the heroine line to go get some, you'd assume education. So in a world where you will ABSOLUTELY NEVER STOP A SINGLE HUMAN BEING ON PLANET EARTH FROM PUTTING ANY DRUG IN THEIR BODY IF THEY REALLY WANT, the best defense for this would be education.
There comes my problem with Mr. Paul, who would dismantle the department of education that so many kids rely on for drug education (and literacy). While I would understand his libertarian "it's your choice if you want to get drug education" I would absolutely disagree. Every child of America should graduate, but hopefully before, with the full knowledge of what these drugs do to your body, for how long, what the correct doses are and why they are so terrible for your body. Once these kids are sat down and told by an adult (my health teacher was the PE teacher, which was pretty sweet) the full truth of exactly what heroine is and does no kid in the right mind would ever try the stuff, just like the people in that audience. So while it's great and all that Paul would give everyone the choice of putting whatever substance into their body they want, if they don't understand the consequences of their actions they're more likely to make a mistake, like doing heroine, and their overdose still becomes "our" overdose. Education is the only thing that can stop a drug epidemic, and we're still fighting a war measured in how many people we can lock away in a place where drugs are more available. The audience has ever right to laugh, even if they are laughing for all the wrong reasons.
More...
There comes my problem with Mr. Paul, who would dismantle the department of education that so many kids rely on for drug education (and literacy). While I would understand his libertarian "it's your choice if you want to get drug education" I would absolutely disagree. Every child of America should graduate, but hopefully before, with the full knowledge of what these drugs do to your body, for how long, what the correct doses are and why they are so terrible for your body. Once these kids are sat down and told by an adult (my health teacher was the PE teacher, which was pretty sweet) the full truth of exactly what heroine is and does no kid in the right mind would ever try the stuff, just like the people in that audience. So while it's great and all that Paul would give everyone the choice of putting whatever substance into their body they want, if they don't understand the consequences of their actions they're more likely to make a mistake, like doing heroine, and their overdose still becomes "our" overdose. Education is the only thing that can stop a drug epidemic, and we're still fighting a war measured in how many people we can lock away in a place where drugs are more available. The audience has ever right to laugh, even if they are laughing for all the wrong reasons.
40
Watchout 5, you have great points. However, my inner spelling nerd kept cringing at every misspelling of heroin. This says more about me than it does about you.
Advertisement
Most Commented on Slog
-
Hating People Doesn't Make Them Thinner by Jen Graves
-
Los Angeles Gay Bar Bans Bachelorette Parties Until Marriage Equality Is Attained by David Schmader
-
Fill in the Blank by Grant Brissey
-
This Reminds Me of the Great Calculator Scare of the Late '70s/Early '80s by David Schmader
-
The Sunday Morning News by Unpaid Intern
-
Idiot Tries to Defend Bigoted Anti-Gay-Marriage Preacher on Anderson Cooper by Paul Constant
-
Six Moms with Too Much Time on Their Hands and a Shitty Website Decide to Fight Gay Superheroes by Paul Constant
-
The Saturday Morning News by Unpaid Intern
-
Former Sen. Alan Simpson (R-WY) Says Members of His Party Have Rocks for Brains by Charles Mudede
-
What the Hell Is Wrong With Seattle's Pride Parade? by Dominic Holden
RSS
Facebook
Twitter
Comments (40) RSS