United States Presidential Election, 2012

I wouldn't call legalization of any drug that is highly harmful to your system a good thing. Do you know if Ron Paul wants to increase the government or decrease it in terms of size?
 
Magus said:
Do you know if Ron Paul wants to increase the government or decrease it in terms of size?
Click to expand...

Decrease. He wants to follow the Tenth Amendment and he says the government should have no power in our personal lives.
 
Right. And there are good things about that (no "I don't believe in gay marriage so no one else can either!!1!") and bad things ("fuck the poor, leave 'em to die, government shouldn't help them").
 
I'd say monitoring illegal drugs is the government's right because it has the potential to be harmful to others as well as the person taking it. However, that's something that would probably be done more effectively by the state governments in most cases. I'd call reducing the size of the Federal Government a plus at this point, and if I had to vote solely on economic policies, that's where the rubber meets the road for me.
 
Messed Up Freakshow of Cryptic Sarcasm said:
Ron Paul will never win, anyway. It will be Obama or Romney.
Click to expand...

This.

Magus said:
I'd say monitoring illegal drugs is the government's right because it has the potential to be harmful to others as well as the person taking it. However, that's something that would probably be done more effectively by the state governments in most cases. I'd call reducing the size of the Federal Government a plus at this point, and if I had to vote solely on economic policies, that's where the rubber meets the road for me.
Click to expand...

That doesn't do anything because people do and will do whatever they have to in order to get them. If illegal drugs are legalized (e.g. if this eventually goes the way of Prohibition, aside from an amendment, which I don't think is necessary at this point), the amount manufactured in homes (and thus the number of accidental explosions) and the amount sold on the street (where you don't know exactly what's going into your body) significantly decreases, and with that, the potential risk to people other than the drug user decreases.
 
Mario4Ever said:
Magus said:
I'd say monitoring illegal drugs is the government's right because it has the potential to be harmful to others as well as the person taking it. However, that's something that would probably be done more effectively by the state governments in most cases. I'd call reducing the size of the Federal Government a plus at this point, and if I had to vote solely on economic policies, that's where the rubber meets the road for me.
Click to expand...

That doesn't do anything because people do and will do whatever they have to in order to get them. If illegal drugs are legalized (e.g. if this eventually goes the way of Prohibition, aside from an amendment, which I don't think is necessary at this point), the amount manufactured in homes (and thus the number of accidental explosions) and the amount sold on the street (where you don't know exactly what's going into your body) significantly decreases, and with that, the potential risk to people other than the drug user decreases.
Click to expand...
I do agree on that; my main point was that it's not a violation of rights to be denied something that makes you potentially more dangerous to people around you. Also, they do seem to be treating the symptoms rather than the cause a good deal in this case.
 
Only low lives and losers take drugs anyway. The legalization of drugs would not cause ONE new person to take them. And the legalization would save the federal government a lot of money. We are 15 trillion dollars and debt and we gotta spend money crowding the prisons and spending billions going on a war on drugs when the low live low class scum will just do them anyway regardless of their legality? Do you really need the federal government to hold you by the hand and make you not take heroine or what not? "Oh, I don't wanna shoot up H, save me oh might Government!" Just don't take it, period! God! Some people are incorrigible.
 
Marwikedor said:
Only low lives and losers take drugs anyway. The legalization of drugs would not cause ONE new person to take them. And the legalization would save the federal government a lot of money. We are 15 trillion dollars and debt and we gotta spend money crowding the prisons and spending billions going on a war on drugs when the low live low class scum will just do them anyway regardless of their legality? Do you really need the federal government to hold you by the hand and make you not take heroine or what not? "Oh, I don't wanna shoot up H, save me oh might Government!" Just don't take it, period! God! Some people are incorrigible.
Click to expand...

You've got a decent point but you phrased it like a jackass.
 
I have a lot to say that can defend marijuana but I don't want to derail the thread. Here's one anyway: having known alcoholics and stoners, I can easily say alcoholics are (generally) far more dangerous. While I admit that doesn't say anything good for marijuana itself, there's a very common misconception that it's as bad as drugs like heroin, cocaine and ecstasy.
 
So what do you guys think of Stephen Colbert entering the race? I'm amused.