Rand Paul: Why ruin a young nonviolent drug offender’s life by sending him to jail?

posted at 3:21 pm on March 25, 2013 by Allahpundit

Via Gateway Pundit, here’s the buzziest bit from yesterday’s “Fox News Sunday” appearance. More than his civil-liberties advocacy, more than his pitch to get the government out of marriage, this call to lighten up on nonviolent drug users is, I think, the surest way to win a fresh look for the GOP from young voters and minorities in 2016. He also stands more of a chance of selling it to conservatives than he does with his marriage position, if only because he can talk up the savings inherent in fewer prosecutions and incarcerations and frame it as a budget issue. He’ll have some trouble with older voters, but even older Americans might prove a bit more understanding than they used to be. There’s also reason to believe that, if anyone can move the GOP base on this, Paul’s the guy: If you want to see how dramatically his Senate filibuster moved the numbers on Obama’s drone policy, compare the poll data from two days before the filibuster to the data today. If he wants to gain similar traction on drug sentencing, he should dress it up as a critique of Obama’s drug policy specifically. Tearing down elements of bigger government by emphasizing The One’s fondness for it is bound to soften up otherwise skeptical voters on the right.

Two things, though. First, having just dumped on Claire McCaskill for pretending to hold a position she secretly disagrees with for electoral gain, it’d be dishonest not to note the same suspicions about Paul. He says he’s not in favor of legalizing marijuana; he must be the only libertarian in America who isn’t, just like he’s the only libertarian in America who claims to want strong borders. One of his real liabilities with mainstream conservatives, I think, is the suspicion that he and his dad secretly are more or less in sync (especially on foreign policy) and that his comparative moderation would soon disappear once in office. In this particular case I hope it would, but I’d rather have a candidate shoot straight with me before I consider voting for him. Second, Paul’s core issue is, of course, reducing federal spending (he just rolled out his proposed 2014 budget), but I wonder if his unorthodox party positions on foreign policy and social issues — drug sentencing, marriage, even abortion — will lead him to be pigeonholed as a sort of libertarian culture warrior, which hurts him in 2016 if social conservatives mobilize against the centrist trend among the GOP establishment on “values” issues. With all the angst among conservatives about economic stagnation, ObamaCare, and solving the entitlements crisis, it’d be bizarre if the next presidential primary came down to a fight over culture. But maybe it’s unavoidable.


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Comment pages: 1 2 3 4

completely agree, prison should be for theft and violence (i.e. direct harm to others)

commodore on March 25, 2013 at 3:24 PM

Now that Allah has linked to this story, instead of me, I wonder if we’ll get all kinds of gross posts about inner city parasites ruining the country?

libfreeordie on March 25, 2013 at 3:26 PM

With all the angst among conservatives about economic stagnation, ObamaCare, and solving the entitlements crisis, it’d be bizarre if the next presidential primary came down to a fight over culture. But maybe it’s unavoidable.

No, it’s avoidable. Well, as long as George Snuffleupagus isn’t moderating any of the primary debates. I think Obamacare, the lousy economy, the crushing debt, and the insane taxes we’ll be forced to pay in order to finance all of it will push social issues to the sidelines. Sorry, but who gives a rat’s ass about Roe v. Wade or gay marriage when the country is insolvent? And I mean that for both the left and right ends of the political spectrum.

Doughboy on March 25, 2013 at 3:26 PM

My enthusiasm for Rand pretty much fell apart after his comments on illegal immigration, but one Libertarian issue I have given serious thought to is the drug war. The drug war is essentially another failed federal jobs program, it’s a money pit.

Private businesses should always have the right to drug test or not hire those who use drugs for recreational use, and Obamacare has to go, but if there is one way to shrink the size and cost of government, it’s to decriminalize marijuana, opium, and ecstasy.

Daemonocracy on March 25, 2013 at 3:30 PM

Now that Allah has linked to this story, instead of me, I wonder if we’ll get all kinds of gross posts about inner city parasites ruining the country?

libfreeordie on March 25, 2013 at 3:26 PM

First off, you are the one that brought up the issue last night. And I was trying to have a reasonable discussion with you, and you didn’t answer any of MY posts. I think you like to create controversy. Tick a few people off and leave…

melle1228 on March 25, 2013 at 3:32 PM

Who ruined who’s life?

Whats next…why ruin a young persons’ life for a bank robbery or two?

And everyday, I’m faced with a life-altering decision…do I take take illegal or not today? So far, I think I’ve made the right decision. But you never know, one day maybe I’ll get it wrong and decide to smoke a little pot. Why should I be punished for a mistake?

BobMbx on March 25, 2013 at 3:32 PM

Look, the last two presidents could conceivably have been put in jail for their drug use.

Actually, the last three. And right there is as good a reason as any!

michaelo on March 25, 2013 at 3:32 PM

Daemonocracy on March 25, 2013 at 3:30 PM

I agree with you on amnesty- no amnesty.

I also agree with decriminalization of marijuana. You lose me on the harder stuff. Prohibition and limited availability does work in some instances i.e., abortion circa 1973 vs. abortion today.

melle1228 on March 25, 2013 at 3:34 PM

Sorry, but who gives a rat’s ass about Roe v. Wade or gay marriage when the country is insolvent? And I mean that for both the left and right ends of the political spectrum.

Doughboy on March 25, 2013 at 3:26 PM

Unfortunately, voters didn’t see the $16+ trillion debt as much of a problem in 2012. But, with Mitt Romney and Reince Priebus responsible for delivering the message ….

bw222 on March 25, 2013 at 3:34 PM

completely agree, prison should be for theft and violence (i.e. direct harm to others)
commodore on March 25, 2013 at 3:24 PM

What if you steal someone’s drugs?

happytobehere on March 25, 2013 at 3:34 PM

Now that Allah has linked to this story, instead of me, I wonder if we’ll get all kinds of gross posts about inner city parasites ruining the country?

libfreeordie on March 25, 2013 at 3:26 PM

Enough about you.

Ward Cleaver on March 25, 2013 at 3:35 PM

What if you steal someone’s drugs?

happytobehere on March 25, 2013 at 3:34 PM

Dude, where’s my car weed?

Ward Cleaver on March 25, 2013 at 3:36 PM

Paul:

I think even marijuana is a bad thing to do, I think it takes away your incentive to work, and show up, and do the things you should be doing…

I have an objection to this!

Oh forget it. It’s not worth the bother.

Wait, what was I talking about again?

WhatSlushfund on March 25, 2013 at 3:36 PM

just like he’s the only libertarian in America who claims to want strong borders.

Eh?

Maybe I’m more of a Federalist than a libertarian, but I don’t see how territorial sovereignty is inconsistent with libertarianism generally.

Dead Hand Control on March 25, 2013 at 3:37 PM

Whats next…why ruin a young persons’ life for a bank robbery or two?
BobMbx on March 25, 2013 at 3:32 PM

Smoking pot is the moral equivalent of bank robbery? What does speeding equal? Murder? Rape? Or just plain old mayhem?

rhombus on March 25, 2013 at 3:37 PM

Sorry, but who gives a rat’s ass about Roe v. Wade or gay marriage when the country is insolvent? And I mean that for both the left and right ends of the political spectrum.

Doughboy on March 25, 2013 at 3:26 PM

Mitt Romney was the right’s compromise to that. Social issues were not talked about at all in this election. It was strictly a fiscal election. I mean I don’t know how you could get anymore neutral on social issues than Mitt Romney.

melle1228 on March 25, 2013 at 3:37 PM

I wonder if we’ll get all kinds of gross posts about inner city parasites ruining the country?

libfreeordie on March 25, 2013 at 3:26 PM

Why should everything be about you?

Archivarix on March 25, 2013 at 3:38 PM

Now that Allah has linked to this story, instead of me, I wonder if we’ll get all kinds of gross posts about inner city parasites ruining the country?

libfreeordie on March 25, 2013 at 3:26 PM

I thought that meth was more of a rural drug – not that I’m an expert.

aryeung on March 25, 2013 at 3:38 PM

He’ll have some trouble with older voters, but even older Americans might prove a bit more understanding than they used to be.

Depends on what you mean by “older” voters. I’ll bet most people born 1940 or later has tasted the loco weed or consider alchohol on par with it.

Vince on March 25, 2013 at 3:38 PM

Unfortunately, voters didn’t see the $16+ trillion debt as much of a problem in 2012. But, with Mitt Romney and Reince Priebus responsible for delivering the message ….

bw222 on March 25, 2013 at 3:34 PM

We just need to get the $16T declared homophobic, then people will be on it.

Ward Cleaver on March 25, 2013 at 3:38 PM

Who ruined who’s life?

Whats next…why ruin a young persons’ life for a bank robbery or two?

And everyday, I’m faced with a life-altering decision…do I take take illegal or not today? So far, I think I’ve made the right decision. But you never know, one day maybe I’ll get it wrong and decide to smoke a little pot. Why should I be punished for a mistake?

BobMbx on March 25, 2013 at 3:32 PM

Robbing a bank is stealing someone else’s property.
Smoking pot doesn’t harm anyone except the person doing it. Sort of like alcohol, which is legal – and takes far more lives via disease and accidents.

But I’m guessing you’re in the camp that thinks just because there’s a law, it must be just. Or is that only for things you personally disapprove of, like smoking pot? If it’s the former, you should defend Obamacare with the same zeal with which you defend throwing people in jail for throwing pot. But I’m guessing it’s the latter – and you’re a shameless hypocrite.

DRayRaven on March 25, 2013 at 3:39 PM

Who ruined who’s life?

Whats next…why ruin a young persons’ life for a bank robbery or two?

And everyday, I’m faced with a life-altering decision…do I take take illegal or not today? So far, I think I’ve made the right decision. But you never know, one day maybe I’ll get it wrong and decide to smoke a little pot. Why should I be punished for a mistake?

BobMbx on March 25, 2013 at 3:32 PM

You’re an idiot. An absolute idiot. If you don’t see the difference between bank robbery and inhaling the smoke of a burning plant, you’re beyond hope.

Timin203 on March 25, 2013 at 3:39 PM

Prepare for the following:

1. Some people talk about the horrors of marijuana and how it destroyed the lives of people they know.

2. Some people talk about marijuana not being a big deal, how they know people who use it without issue, or even that they use it themselves without issue.

3. Group from Step 1 calls groups from Step 2 potheads, stoners, etc and doesn’t actually counter their arguments.

4. Group from Step 2 brings up the legality of alcohol and the fact that, like marijuana, some people can use it responsibly while others cannot use it without detriment to their lives.

5. Group from Step 1 counters that said argument only makes sense to potheads.

6. Give up and go to a gay marriage thread where civil conversation can be had.

MadisonConservative on March 25, 2013 at 3:39 PM

The Apple does not far from the tree. Rand is proving he is his father’s son and that is not a good thing. Okay, logically if any President committed an offense that he was not arrested for the offense was even detected, that crime should now be legal. Right Rand. How absurd.

By the Way, Presidents do not require a background check only the required electoral votes. Oh and other past presidents have been accused or suspected of far worse but we do not see a rush to legalize rape, murder and other crimes.

Natebo on March 25, 2013 at 3:39 PM

Maybe I’m more of a Federalist than a libertarian, but I don’t see how territorial sovereignty is inconsistent with libertarianism generally.

Dead Hand Control on March 25, 2013 at 3:37 PM

Seems like it’s defending basic property rights which is very libertarian I would think.

rhombus on March 25, 2013 at 3:39 PM

If we can get the Dems stoned enough do you think they’ll stop voting?

happytobehere on March 25, 2013 at 3:39 PM

Why should everything be about you?

Archivarix on March 25, 2013 at 3:38 PM

GMTA.

Ward Cleaver on March 25, 2013 at 3:39 PM

Now that Allah has linked to this story, instead of me, I wonder if we’ll get all kinds of gross posts about inner city parasites ruining the country?

libfreeordie on March 25, 2013 at 3:26 PM

Wow! Speak of devil.

HotAirian on March 25, 2013 at 3:39 PM

this call to lighten up on nonviolent drug users is, I think, the surest way to win a fresh look for the GOP from young voters and minorities in 2016.

Yeah, right.

Liberals have been saying the same thing for the last 40 years while the Republicans have been the leading proponents of the “War On Drugs”, Zero Tolerance, Just Say No, disparate sentencing etc.

I suspect “young voters and minorities” will quickly revoke that “fresh look” as they recall that Rand couldn’t even bring himself to say the 1964 Civil Rights Act was a good idea.

chumpThreads on March 25, 2013 at 3:40 PM

For all you who think smoking pot is ok, just realize that the United States is now being led by the Choom Gang. In a few years, plutonium nyborg will be legal.

BobMbx on March 25, 2013 at 3:40 PM

Whats next…why ruin a young persons’ life for a bank robbery or two?

BobMbx on March 25, 2013 at 3:32 PM

That’s cause that young person would steal someone’s money. There is no victim in dope smoking, besides the smoker himself, and even that is kinda questionable.

Archivarix on March 25, 2013 at 3:41 PM

Young, nonviolent drug offenders typically don’t receive the “37, 50, 45 years” in jail of which Sen. Paul was disingenuously speaking.

steebo77 on March 25, 2013 at 3:41 PM

MadisonConservative on March 25, 2013 at 3:39 PM

You nailed it, it’s the drug wars waged on many web fronts.

rhombus on March 25, 2013 at 3:41 PM

I mean I don’t know how you could get anymore neutral on social issues than Mitt Romney.
melle1228 on March 25, 2013 at 3:37 PM

Between his bouts of women binding and contraceptive banning, of course.

happytobehere on March 25, 2013 at 3:42 PM

You’re an idiot. An absolute idiot. If you don’t see the difference between bank robbery and inhaling the smoke of a burning plant, you’re beyond hope.

Timin203 on March 25, 2013 at 3:39 PM

There’s a world of difference between the two. But yet, they have something in common.

They’re against the law. Or, used to be in some places.

BobMbx on March 25, 2013 at 3:42 PM

And everyday, I’m faced with a life-altering decision…do I take take illegal or not today?

BobMbx on March 25, 2013 at 3:32 PM

So you never drive over the speed limit, you report every penny of your income to the government, you have never downloaded an mp3, and otherwise have never committed any other type of crime equivalent in societal impact to smoking a joint at home?

Not even going to remark on how meaningless your bank robbery comparison is.

MadisonConservative on March 25, 2013 at 3:42 PM

Mitt Romney was the right’s compromise to that. Social issues were not talked about at all in this election. It was strictly a fiscal election. I mean I don’t know how you could get anymore neutral on social issues than Mitt Romney.

melle1228 on March 25, 2013 at 3:37 PM

The problem was Mitt Romney’s approach to the fiscal outlook of the nation. He should’ve been sounding the alarm bells. He talked about the weak economy and stagnant job and wage growth, but he never tied it to Obama’s insane spending and Bernanke’s money printing and explained how the latter impacts the former.

If you look at the exit polls, a majority of Americans agreed with Romney on economic and fiscal matters. But he failed to get enough of them to blame Obama and his policies on our current mess.

Doughboy on March 25, 2013 at 3:43 PM

If we can still arrest Zero for his Choom Gang days then I say YES!

Minnfidel on March 25, 2013 at 3:43 PM

he’s the only libertarian in America who claims to want strong borders

There’s at least two of us.

John the Libertarian on March 25, 2013 at 3:43 PM

My enthusiasm for Rand pretty much fell apart after his comments on illegal immigration ….

Daemonocracy on March 25, 2013 at 3:30 PM

Same here. Rand Paul is supposed to be a fiscal conservative, but amnesty will add trillions to the national debt (especially if illegals can bring family members to the U.S. once they become citizens).

Rand Paul has become a libertarian version of John McCain lately, looking for any TV camera where he can spout his views.

bw222 on March 25, 2013 at 3:43 PM

For all you who think smoking pot is ok, just realize that the United States is now being led by the Choom Gang. In a few years, plutonium nyborg will be legal.

BobMbx on March 25, 2013 at 3:40 PM

And Bush was drug-free?

MadisonConservative on March 25, 2013 at 3:43 PM

If we can get the Dems stoned enough do you think they’ll stop voting?

happytobehere on March 25, 2013 at 3:39 PM

Nope. They are all stoned already. No change.

HotAirian on March 25, 2013 at 3:43 PM

That’s cause that young person would steal someone’s money. There is no victim in dope smoking, besides the smoker himself, and even that is kinda questionable.

Archivarix on March 25, 2013 at 3:41 PM

Except for Mexicans. And border patrol agents killed by a gun given to drug dealers by the border patrol agents’ employer.

Yeah, no victims at all.

BobMbx on March 25, 2013 at 3:44 PM

…this call to lighten up on nonviolent drug users is, I think, the surest way to win a fresh look for the GOP from young voters and minorities in 2016.

Between this and amnesty, 2016 is a lock for the GOP!

Racist?

happytobehere on March 25, 2013 at 3:45 PM

I suspect “young voters and minorities” will quickly revoke that “fresh look” as they recall that Rand couldn’t even bring himself to say the 1964 Civil Rights Act was a good idea.

chumpThreads on March 25, 2013 at 3:40 PM

According to my daughter’s college libertarian club, most young voters already see the CRA for what it was – redistributional scam intended to “stick it to the YT” – and won’t mind if it’s flushed down. Minorities are another thing, but their heads are so deep up the Democrat Party’s butt, I doubt even Rand Paul is naive enough to hope to lure them back.

Archivarix on March 25, 2013 at 3:45 PM

They put young sex offenders in Prison all the time… “why ruin a young man’s life just for have had sex?” Didn’t hurt anyone… Nothing wrong with a little statutory rape now and then, is there?

HopeHeFails on March 25, 2013 at 3:45 PM

And Bush was drug-free?

MadisonConservative on March 25, 2013 at 3:43 PM

If you have good information, I’d suggest a 911 call, or a citizens arrest.

BobMbx on March 25, 2013 at 3:45 PM

Rand Paul is absolutely crazy to suggest that people shouldn’t go to jail for smoking weed. Just as crazy as Sarah Palin and Ronald Reagan…those two potheads.

MadisonConservative on March 25, 2013 at 3:46 PM

chumpThreads on March 25, 2013 at 3:40 PM

^^^^

This is why Hotair can’t have nice stuff…

Who left the light on for the liberals?

melle1228 on March 25, 2013 at 3:46 PM

If you have good information, I’d suggest a 911 call, or a citizens arrest.

BobMbx on March 25, 2013 at 3:45 PM

Right…because that’s an argument.

MadisonConservative on March 25, 2013 at 3:47 PM

…just like he’s the only libertarian in America who claims to want strong borders…

Any self-proclaimed libertarian who wants open borders is probably actually a progressive. Progressives are famous for pretending to be so many things that they are not. Open borders will ensure socialism. Any actual libertarian will have no doubt about this.

Ceteris Paribus on March 25, 2013 at 3:47 PM

Except for Mexicans. And border patrol agents killed by a gun given to drug dealers by the border patrol agents’ employer.

Yeah, no victims at all.

BobMbx on March 25, 2013 at 3:44 PM

Decriminalize it, and the business will shift from the realm of lucre into the mundane grocery shopping. There will be no money there for gangs to bother. Or, if you and other little napoleons are totally hell-bent on directing people’s private lives, just decriminalize consumption while keeping distribution illegal.

Archivarix on March 25, 2013 at 3:47 PM

What if we hand out weed with a ballot? But you can only pick one.

happytobehere on March 25, 2013 at 3:48 PM

If you look at the exit polls, a majority of Americans agreed with Romney on economic and fiscal matters. But he failed to get enough of them to blame Obama and his policies on our current mess.

Doughboy on March 25, 2013 at 3:43 PM

Unfortunately, after he won the first debate, Romney’s moderate Republican handlers convinced him to act Presidential rather than taking the steps to defeat Barack Obama. And Paul Ryan was a total non-factor.

bw222 on March 25, 2013 at 3:48 PM

Right…because that’s an argument.

MadisonConservative on March 25, 2013 at 3:47 PM

You offered it first.

BobMbx on March 25, 2013 at 3:49 PM

Ehh…gotta be careful with this. At a certain point when you’ve watered down or reduced the punishment to almost nothing you might as well just legalize it in order to decrease criminal activity.

Otherwise I’d be concerned about criminal profits skyrocketing in selling drugs if you stop giving out harsh sentences. If you take away the risk of being caught with drugs, then you probably increase people’s purchase of drugs and therefore increase all the criminal activity outside of personal use of it. There’s a supply chain to illegal drugs that extends far outside of the old man with glaucoma or the stupid hipster in a wool beanie.

nextgen_repub on March 25, 2013 at 3:50 PM

Given the country liberals have made for us, it might be better to go through life high as a kite and drunk as a skunk.

There was a reason Orwell put in 1984 the detail of Victory Gin.

Liam on March 25, 2013 at 3:50 PM

It’s an interesting question. If young people want to ruin their own lives by taking drugs, is that any of my business?

If drugs were legalized, the lucrative illegal drug trade would dry up. Gangs would have less reason to defend their turf, there would be fewer drug-related shootings. Fewer black men would start off their adult lives with prison records and a network of felons as their best option.

That said, I’m not sure society should stand idly by while people ingest substances that could kill them in a single dose.

hawksruleva on March 25, 2013 at 3:51 PM

Decriminalize it, and the business will shift from the realm of lucre into the mundane grocery shopping. There will be no money there for gangs to bother. Or, if you and other little napoleons are totally hell-bent on directing people’s private lives, just decriminalize consumption while keeping distribution illegal.

Archivarix on March 25, 2013 at 3:47 PM

Anything else you’d like to de-criminalize? Or can we stop here?

BobMbx on March 25, 2013 at 3:51 PM

As a Libertarian He already knows the answer to this. Too many of our prisons are run by private companies. Their “product” are the prisoners and the state is in collusion to keep them in product.

Wood Dragon on March 25, 2013 at 3:52 PM

You offered it first.

BobMbx on March 25, 2013 at 3:49 PM

You’re the one attacking marijuana on the basis that Obama smoked it. So did Bush…by his own admission. We know Clinton did. Dunno about Bush Sr.(and don’t much care), and I’ve already posted that Reagan was for legalization before he was “Just Say No”.

Apparently everyone in politics is toking like a boss. But hey…you keep attributing Obama’s idiocy to that, while his DOJ continues to raid legal dispensaries in California. States’ rights only matter if you like what they’re protecting, right?

MadisonConservative on March 25, 2013 at 3:53 PM

he must be the only libertarian in America who isn’t, just like he’s the only libertarian in America who claims to want strong borders

Every libertarian I know is in favor of strong borders. They just emphasize the importance of the rule of law, and making sure all laws are equally enforced.

And the libertarians I know complain often about Washington DC politicians feeling the need to send troops to secure the porous borders of other countries while conveniently forgetting about our own porous ad open borders.

56andwarmweather on March 25, 2013 at 3:53 PM

I never used Drugs or Alcohol as a kid because of the shame it would bring to my family if I were ever caught.

But since they outlawed Shame in the country, I guess it’s “Do what you want!” 24/7.

portlandon on March 25, 2013 at 3:53 PM

People don’t go to jail for drug use unless there are other factors involved.

People’s lives are only ruined when they go to jail because people like me won’t hire them once they do.

I’m all for protecting rights. But if you aren’t going to defend MY RIGHT to not hire a druggie you aren’t really that interested in defending rights are you?

jhffmn on March 25, 2013 at 3:54 PM

To take the contrary position, if Bush had been imprisoned for smoking pot, and more so Obama for his cocaine use, wouldn’t we be better off as a country?

18-1 on March 25, 2013 at 3:54 PM

According to my daughter’s college libertarian club, most young voters already see the CRA for what it was – redistributional scam intended to “stick it to the YT” – and won’t mind if it’s flushed down. Minorities are another thing, but their heads are so deep up the Democrat Party’s butt, I doubt even Rand Paul is naive enough to hope to lure them back.

Archivarix on March 25, 2013 at 3:45 PM

I suspect your daughter’s college libertarian club is about as relevant as every other libertarian organization. Not.

chumpThreads on March 25, 2013 at 3:54 PM

Otherwise I’d be concerned about criminal profits skyrocketing in selling drugs if you stop giving out harsh sentences. If you take away the risk of being caught with drugs, then you probably increase people’s purchase of drugs and therefore increase all the criminal activity outside of personal use of it. There’s a supply chain to illegal drugs that extends far outside of the old man with glaucoma or the stupid hipster in a wool beanie.

nextgen_repub on March 25, 2013 at 3:50 PM

So a commodity becomes less risky to buy and sell, spurring more people to sell it…and the price goes up? Interesting economic model.

MadisonConservative on March 25, 2013 at 3:55 PM

It’s an interesting question. If young people want to ruin their own lives by taking drugs, is that any of my business?

If drugs were legalized, the lucrative illegal drug trade would dry up. Gangs would have less reason to defend their turf, there would be fewer drug-related shootings. Fewer black men would start off their adult lives with prison records and a network of felons as their best option.

That said, I’m not sure society should stand idly by while people ingest substances that could kill them in a single dose.

hawksruleva on March 25, 2013 at 3:51 PM

Okay here’s where I differ from you. I am quite okay with decriminalization and legalization of weed, but I do not think that the black market will dry up. Why? It already exists, and weed and drugs will become taxed to high heaven by the government. The black market will continue to sell under market price(government price).. There is a huge black market in New York for cigarettes for this very reason and the drug market already exists- to think that it will suddenly disolve is hilarious.

melle1228 on March 25, 2013 at 3:55 PM

Decriminalize it, and the business will shift from the realm of lucre into the mundane grocery shopping. There will be no money there for gangs to bother. Or, if you and other little napoleons are totally hell-bent on directing people’s private lives, just decriminalize consumption while keeping distribution illegal.
Archivarix on March 25, 2013 at 3:47 PM

You’re going to need to decriminalize all drugs. While violence is related to prohibition I think you’ll be shocked how much gang violence is not actually the result of drugs or the war on drugs.

happytobehere on March 25, 2013 at 3:55 PM

To take the contrary position, if Bush had been imprisoned for smoking pot, and more so Obama for his cocaine use, wouldn’t we be better off as a country?

18-1 on March 25, 2013 at 3:54 PM

I like this.

portlandon on March 25, 2013 at 3:55 PM

I totally agree.

Go after the dealers.

JellyToast on March 25, 2013 at 3:55 PM

What we need is for Nanny Bloomberg to declare carbonated sugar-water illegal, so we can refer to people as “cokeheads” when they argue that the government has zero authority banning said (now-)controlled substance.

Jeddite on March 25, 2013 at 3:55 PM

I’m all for protecting rights. But if you aren’t going to defend MY RIGHT to not hire a druggie you aren’t really that interested in defending rights are you?

jhffmn on March 25, 2013 at 3:54 PM

1. Can you cite this right?
2. Can you cite any source indicating anybody wants to deny you this right?

(Damnit, it’s just like MadCon said…!)

Jeddite on March 25, 2013 at 3:57 PM

ALSO:

just like he’s the only libertarian in America who claims to want strong borders

Lazy, AllahP, lazy.

Jeddite on March 25, 2013 at 3:59 PM

“If we can get the Dems stoned enough do you think they’ll stop voting?”

Why do you think they vote the way they do!

Minnfidel on March 25, 2013 at 3:59 PM

People don’t go to jail for drug use unless there are other factors involved.

People’s lives are only ruined when they go to jail because people like me won’t hire them once they do.

I’m all for protecting rights. But if you aren’t going to defend MY RIGHT to not hire a druggie you aren’t really that interested in defending rights are you?

jhffmn on March 25, 2013 at 3:54 PM

Actually I think I would be safe in saying that most of us agree that as a business owner you can hire or fire anyone you want. No tolerance drug policies in private business should remain intact especially when we are talking about high risk occupations. Heck, my husband is a helicopter pilot and is banned from taking some over the counter drugs without a flight surgeon’s approval.

melle1228 on March 25, 2013 at 3:59 PM

Okay here’s where I differ from you. I am quite okay with decriminalization and legalization of weed, but I do not think that the black market will dry up. Why? It already exists, and weed and drugs will become taxed to high heaven by the government. The black market will continue to sell under market price(government price).. There is a huge black market in New York for cigarettes for this very reason and the drug market already exists- to think that it will suddenly disolve is hilarious.

melle1228 on March 25, 2013 at 3:55 PM

Sure, but people still buy legal cigarettes by the billions. Most people will not buy something illegally if it’s available for legal purchase. Why go through the extra hassle? What’s unarguable is that the current demand for marijuana would quickly be siphoned off by legalized sales(because who doesn’t want to avoid potential criminal charges?). Sure, there would still be black market sales either for those who want to sell weed that doesn’t pass muster in the legitimate market…or purchase by kids who won’t be legal to purchase it anyway. However…that market already exists and is active. It will continue to be active after legalization…but those will be the only black market consumers left. Everyone else will be picking it up at the convenience store or tobacco store or wherever the hell they’ll sell it.

MadisonConservative on March 25, 2013 at 3:59 PM

Why don’t we solve the little problem of being $17 Trillion dollars in debt first, along with Obowma’s policies that are destroying this country first…

… then we can sit around and leisurely discuss this topic?

Seven Percent Solution on March 25, 2013 at 4:00 PM

That said, I’m not sure society should stand idly by while people ingest substances that could kill them in a single dose.
hawksruleva on March 25, 2013 at 3:51 PM

On the contrary, that’s some Darwinism I could get behind.

happytobehere on March 25, 2013 at 4:00 PM

I agree with Ace…Allah overthinks everything.

DanMan on March 25, 2013 at 4:00 PM

MadisonConservative on March 25, 2013 at 3:59 PM

You think the Mexican cartels are going to cede control of the drug trade that easily?

melle1228 on March 25, 2013 at 4:00 PM

That said, I’m not sure society should stand idly by while people ingest substances that could kill them in a single dose.
hawksruleva on March 25, 2013 at 3:51 PM

On the contrary, that’s some Darwinism I could get behind.

happytobehere on March 25, 2013 at 4:00 PM

I’m of the view that we shouldn’t go out to kill the stupid. I say we just remove all warning labels and let Nature take its course.

Liam on March 25, 2013 at 4:03 PM

You think the Mexican cartels are going to cede control of the drug trade that easily?

melle1228 on March 25, 2013 at 4:00 PM

What are they going to do? Invade America and attack all legitimate marijuana production facilities? Well…okay, yes, that is plausible. Just not likely.

I’m saying it won’t be a matter of ceding control…because the control will be out of their hands. Did the mob ever rise again to the heights it enjoyed during Prohibition?

MadisonConservative on March 25, 2013 at 4:05 PM

You’re an idiot. An absolute idiot. If you don’t see the difference between bank robbery and inhaling the smoke of a burning plant, you’re beyond hope.

Timin203 on March 25, 2013 at 3:39 PM

And yet there are probably quite a few people who think that robbing those mean old foreclosing banks isn;t really a big deal.

Ronnie on March 25, 2013 at 4:05 PM

What are they going to do? Invade America and attack all legitimate marijuana production facilities? Well…okay, yes, that is plausible. Just not likely.

I’m saying it won’t be a matter of ceding control…because the control will be out of their hands. Did the mob ever rise again to the heights it enjoyed during Prohibition?

MadisonConservative on March 25, 2013 at 4:05 PM

It ought to be interesting. And yeah the mob did. It adapted in to other ventures like gambling..

Like I said, marijuana okay- When Libertarians start trying to justify the harder stuff like Meth they lose me.

melle1228 on March 25, 2013 at 4:08 PM

With all the angst among conservatives about economic stagnation, ObamaCare, and solving the entitlements crisis, it’d be bizarre if the next presidential primary came down to a fight over culture. But maybe it’s unavoidable.

But, it’s always about culture. That’s why the SoCons still own the GOP. Until that stranglehold is broken, the GOP (and, as a result, the whole country) will suffer as a result.

There is absolutely no difference between the nanny-state SoCons and the nanny-state Libtards. None. The focus of their ire is presumably different, but the end result is still fundamentally the same.

nukemhill on March 25, 2013 at 4:10 PM

Except for Mexicans. And border patrol agents killed by a gun given to drug dealers by the border patrol agents’ employer.

Yeah, no victims at all.

BobMbx on March 25, 2013 at 3:44 PM

Dear, some grow their own for consumption.

katy the mean old lady on March 25, 2013 at 4:10 PM

But, it’s always about culture. That’s why the SoCons still own the GOP. Until that stranglehold is broken, the GOP (and, as a result, the whole country) will suffer as a result.

There is absolutely no difference between the nanny-state SoCons and the nanny-state Libtards. None. The focus of their ire is presumably different, but the end result is still fundamentally the same.

nukemhill on March 25, 2013 at 4:10 PM

Yeah cuz socons are all the same right. We are just like Liberals right? All nanny staters right?

You know when the GOP will start winning again? When we stop eating our own.

melle1228 on March 25, 2013 at 4:14 PM

I know plenty of libertarian, and libertarian leaning individuals, whom want strong borders. They just want a somewhat more open and transparent immigration system as well.

Frankly, I’m not opposed to that, I just wish that Mexico would get its act together a little so fewer people would feel the need to flee here. I don’t mind having Mexican immigrants, they work hard and have good family values. I do however, want to maintain the whole melting pot system, which means ideally we aren’t taking in too many people from any singular culture.

If we took in 90% French individuals, after so many generations our culture would become french. Same goes with 90% British, Norwegian, Chinese, Japanese, Korean, Liberian, Kenyen, etc etc.

I don’t have a problem with people from any country immigrating. Ideally however there’s enough of a cultural spread that the existing native culture remains, somewhat predominant.

Yes, I know, that does sound somewhat nativest. However, the way I look at it, the existing culture already exists as a successful blending of numerous cultures. So I don’t want to swap out a successful blend of cultures for an unknown predominantly singular culture.

WolvenOne on March 25, 2013 at 4:14 PM

It ought to be interesting. And yeah the mob did. It adapted in to other ventures like gambling..

Yeah, they stuck around…but they never rose to the prolific culture that they did during prohibition, when mass shootings were commonplace. The most similar place and time in the 20th century? Late 1970s-early 1980s Miami during the cocaine wars. They barely even show up on the radar anymore, being limited to numbers running and phone card scams.

Like I said, marijuana okay- When Libertarians start trying to justify the harder stuff like Meth they lose me.

melle1228 on March 25, 2013 at 4:08 PM

Here’s the problem, though – is the issue merely weed or is it drugs in general? What about someone like Timothy Leary who loved him some LSD? What about the crazy libertarian stockbroker who loves him some shrooms? What about the party animal who never goes anywhere without some MDMA to turn the party up?

Ultimately, if pot is legalized, we’re going to have a future debate about why pot and alcohol are okay but X is not(and I don’t even want to think about the nightmare that would occur if tobacco were outlawed).

MadisonConservative on March 25, 2013 at 4:16 PM

Dear, some grow their own for consumption.
katy the mean old lady on March 25, 2013 at 4:10 PM

Then there’s the solution. Want to smoke pot? Grow your own. Grow all you want. Just don’t sell or transport it.

Take the money out of it.

BobMbx on March 25, 2013 at 4:17 PM

Yeah cuz socons are all the same right. We are just like Liberals right? All nanny staters right?

melle1228 on March 25, 2013 at 4:14 PM

It would help if the “social conservative” label weren’t solely claimed by nanny-state-minded names like Santorum, Huckabee, and Robertson.

MadisonConservative on March 25, 2013 at 4:17 PM

You’re going to need to decriminalize all drugs. While violence is related to prohibition I think you’ll be shocked how much gang violence is not actually the result of drugs or the war on drugs.

happytobehere on March 25, 2013 at 3:55 PM

Contemporary inner city violence is, indeed, less and less associated with securing lucrative drug territory, as rates of crack addiction in inner city areas has plummeted since the height of the 1980s. The big money is being made in the sale of meth and/or designer drugs like “Molly” (which is basically MDMA) and white. But those drugs also have larger production costs, marijuana works like the short term money market loans that grease the wheels of retail capitalism. Its a constant low level inflow of cash to gangs which they use to buy guns and finance more dangerous drugs. If weed was of no value to organized crime they wouldn’t sell it.

libfreeordie on March 25, 2013 at 4:18 PM

Still will never vote for the guy!

KBird on March 25, 2013 at 4:19 PM

Then there’s the solution. Want to smoke pot? Grow your own. Grow all you want. Just don’t sell or transport it.

Take the money out of it.

BobMbx on March 25, 2013 at 4:17 PM

That’s called decriminalization. You seem to be against it.

MadisonConservative on March 25, 2013 at 4:19 PM

I’m saying it won’t be a matter of ceding control…because the control will be out of their hands. Did the mob ever rise again to the heights it enjoyed during Prohibition?
MadisonConservative on March 25, 2013 at 4:05 PM

Prohibition of alcohol is a very tenuous comparison. Demand for booze was still very high. Public sentiment was very relaxed about enforcement of prohibition. The crime of distributing liquor was mostly tolerated. The mob’s violence etc. led to greater crackdowns.

Drug distribution is not tolerated by the public.

The trouble with drugs is that they are by and large abused by the young and stupid. If you’re still smoking weed when you’re in your 30s that’s just sad. Drinking, otoh, just doesn’t share that same public stigma.

All that being said, I agree with Rand here. Sentencing should be light for the non-violent offenders.

happytobehere on March 25, 2013 at 4:21 PM

You think the Mexican cartels are going to cede control of the drug trade that easily?

melle1228 on March 25, 2013 at 4:00 PM

They won’t have to. The only thing that changes for the individual at the top of the cartel food chain is that they can become legitimate business people.

HarryBackside on March 25, 2013 at 4:21 PM

Here’s the problem, though – is the issue merely weed or is it drugs in general? What about someone like Timothy Leary who loved him some LSD? What about the crazy libertarian stockbroker who loves him some shrooms? What about the party animal who never goes anywhere without some MDMA to turn the party up?

Ultimately, if pot is legalized, we’re going to have a future debate about why pot and alcohol are okay but X is not(and I don’t even want to think about the nightmare that would occur if tobacco were outlawed).

MadisonConservative on March 25, 2013 at 4:16 PM

Yeah but you can honestly say that there isn’t much diffence between alchohol and marijuana from societal danger point of view. Can you say that about Meth? Can a meth head really be a productive member of society? Can they raise their children?

And I don’t buy that limited availiblility and prohibition does not work. Look at abortion circa 1973 vs. abortion now. Did it completely take care of the problem-no,but it was a heck of lot less than it is today.

melle1228 on March 25, 2013 at 4:21 PM

I’m in agreement with Paul on this. Having the Federal government engaged on one less domestic war with all it’s appurtenant war crimes and indiscriminate casualties along with running a host of Gitmo-like facilities torturing inmates is fine by me.

Dusty on March 25, 2013 at 4:24 PM

It would help if the “social conservative” label weren’t solely claimed by nanny-state-minded names like Santorum, Huckabee, and Robertson.

MadisonConservative on March 25, 2013 at 4:17 PM

You don’t have to tell me. I have railed several time that those people are not social conservatives. That most social conservatives are as fiscally conservatives as they are socially.

Besides most social conservatives are reactionary social conservatives. They are quite happy to live in their state and vote on issues there. It is thing being pushed federally by liberals and in the judiciary that has made them go “federal amendment.” Push back on the liberals using the judiciary and the federal government, and you will see the socons quiet down.

melle1228 on March 25, 2013 at 4:25 PM

Comment pages: 1 2 3 4