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

Because Jesus!

Now pass me my wine.

Spliff Menendez on March 25, 2013 at 9:44 PM

If we legalize pot then a new strong lobby will be pushing for lax ,pro smoker, hiring and firing laws.

BoxHead1 on March 25, 2013 at 8:32 PM

Where’s that lobby for drinkers? I read about drunk driving being legalized…in Ireland.

MadisonConservative on March 25, 2013 at 9:49 PM

You’ve so far “argued” that people don’t “need” drugs(meaningless to the debate), that doing drugs means you are “drugged to the gills”(because everyone who drinks is a raging alcoholic), and that wanting drugs to be legalized is “selfishness”. All of those things are your subjective opinion and also are not rational arguments…which is exactly the reason I was able to substitute the gun control argument in there. You’re operating not on logic for your opinion, but emotion. Don’t blame me for your choice of words.

MadisonConservative on March 25, 2013 at 7:31 PM

Which all goes back to the initial argument about repealing a current law. Whether doing so is in the public interest.

Is there a “need” (or insert function if you so wish) that serves the public if the law is repealed?

Is there service to society if everyone is nonfunctioning (drugged to the gills)? Is this a good reason to repeal a law? Something we should consider?

And I submit ANY lawbreaker is selfish. Do you disagree with that assessment?

You chose to read emotion into it. Now I will take some responsibility as I should have been clinical and detached like I am now and was not as precise with my words, but I thought you could handle the discussion and the words as is. I will have to remember this.

I don’t recall agreeing with you on the immigration issue and I’m too lazy to go look, but I appreciate you remembering.

It was disingenuous for you to try to attach this to the current second amendment issue. Arguing the benefits/detriments of repealing a law compared to constitutional rights? No comparison whatsoever. But you know this.

kim roy on March 25, 2013 at 9:49 PM

Is there service to society if everyone is nonfunctioning (drugged to the gills)? Is this a good reason to repeal a law? Something we should consider?

And for preciseness’ sake I should probably clarify the above further: Nonfunctioning could also be defined as even one pill, one drink, one whatever. Would you want your car mechanic, surgeon, pilot, bus driver, etc, anything but stone cold sober.

kim roy on March 25, 2013 at 9:54 PM

If we legalize pot then a new strong lobby will be pushing for lax ,pro smoker, hiring and firing laws.

BoxHead1 on March 25, 2013 at 8:32 PM

Where’s that lobby for drinkers? I read about drunk driving being legalized…in Ireland.

MadisonConservative on March 25, 2013 at 9:49 PM

Drunk is Drunk. Even a big lobby couldn’t get drunk driving laws on the books(except in Ireland). Being High on weed is more subtle and it’s being tied to medicinal use which will make it even harder to regulate in the work place and on the road. Maybe if enough accidents happen ,eventually, the MJ lobby would have to retreat… Anyway,every drug has it’s own character. You can’t accurately generalize based on alcohol.

Also, there is a big spirits lobby and I heard they make it impossible brew and distribute your own. Watch the MJ lobby do the same as the cigarette lobby has with tobacco distribution but without the anti-smoking adds and danger label.

It wasn’t directed at you but you didn’t take up my last point(about heroine and coke never being legalized).

BoxHead1 on March 25, 2013 at 10:01 PM

couldn’t get drunk driving laws on the books couldn’t get drunk driving laws off the books

BoxHead1 on March 25, 2013 at 10:03 PM

Is there a “need” (or insert function if you so wish) that serves the public if the law is repealed?

What would be your answer to the same question regarding the >16 oz drink ban in New York?

Is there service to society if everyone is nonfunctioning (drugged to the gills)?

Emotional again. This is a red herring. Legalizing marijuana would not mean that “everyone is drugged to the gills”, which again you refuse to define. People who want to get high already are. If marijuana was legalized, the majority of people who would legally try it would be like the majority who have already tried it – that is, they would try it once or twice, and probably never bother again. I swear, some of you seem to think that every American is one repealed law away from creating Sodom and Gomorrah.

And I submit ANY lawbreaker is selfish. Do you disagree with that assessment?

kim roy on March 25, 2013 at 9:49 PM

Absolutely, and your statement demonstrates obedience and allegiance to the state. Tell me, when the farmer in the UK went to prison for several years for killing two intruders, was he being selfish?

When I had to travel through Chicago(in one of the worst areas), and I illegally conceal-carried my lawfully owned firearm in order to defend my and my wife’s life, was I being selfish?

When you fail to report income to the IRS…are you being selfish?

“Selfish” is one of those lovely loaded words used when people decide that self-interest is suddenly inconvenient if it involves conduct you disagree with. Some think that the desire for gun rights, low taxes, less regulation, and union reform are all “selfish”. Both libertarians and the tea party are often called “selfish” because they don’t want their taxes raised, just like you…and you wield the word in the same way to fit your agenda.

“Selfish”, in politics, usually is nothing more than a shortened form of “what I feel is more important than your rights”.

MadisonConservative on March 25, 2013 at 10:05 PM

BTW – for the pot activists -
You cant roll and sell your own cigs. becoming a tobacco manufacturer and distributor is very hard to do.And unlike cannabis, the law does crack down on illegal cigarette sales. The same will happen if MJ is legalized and the lobby starts pushing regs.

BoxHead1 on March 25, 2013 at 10:08 PM

Nonfunctioning could also be defined as even one pill, one drink, one whatever.

That’s a stupid definition, because different substances affect people differently. A beer for one person can knock them out, while another can down three and not miss a beat. I see that not only are you unable to differentiate between substances but also that you’re completely unaware of how they affect others.

Would you want your car mechanic, surgeon, pilot, bus driver, etc, anything but stone cold sober.

kim roy on March 25, 2013 at 9:54 PM

I don’t really care. Do you ask any of them if they’ve drank or smoked or snorted or injected something before they start their work? All that matter is the work. If it’s poor, whether they’re drunk or not, I don’t care. Would you? Would it make you feel better if your car mechanic just sheared the front axle in half…but he was sober?

And by the way, you still haven’t answered this: do you support alcohol criminalization? If not, why not?

MadisonConservative on March 25, 2013 at 10:10 PM

BTW – for the pot activists -
You cant roll and sell your own cigs. becoming a tobacco manufacturer and distributor is very hard to do.And unlike cannabis, the law does crack down on illegal cigarette sales. The same will happen if MJ is legalized and the lobby starts pushing regs.

BoxHead1 on March 25, 2013 at 10:08 PM

That’s true, and I don’t look forward to it. Frankly, decriminalization is looking more and more alluring, if only to keep the government from making it harder to get and more expensive, as they’re sure to do.

MadisonConservative on March 25, 2013 at 10:11 PM

Drunk is Drunk. Even a big lobby couldn’t get drunk driving laws on the books(except in Ireland). Being High on weed is more subtle and it’s being tied to medicinal use which will make it even harder to regulate in the work place and on the road. Maybe if enough accidents happen ,eventually, the MJ lobby would have to retreat… Anyway,every drug has it’s own character. You can’t accurately generalize based on alcohol.

Also, there is a big spirits lobby and I heard they make it impossible brew and distribute your own. Watch the MJ lobby do the same as the cigarette lobby has with tobacco distribution but without the anti-smoking adds and danger label.

It wasn’t directed at you but you didn’t take up my last point(about heroine and coke never being legalized).

BoxHead1 on March 25, 2013 at 10:01 PM

I don’t really have much to say about it. I tend to agree with you that they will never be legalized, but whether they should or not is something I’m unsure about. Personally, I see coke and heroin and all the harder drugs as stupid, reckless, dangerous indulgences…but then I could say the same thing about base jumping or binging on fast food or promiscuity or any of a number of other dangerous behaviors we don’t use government to prevent people from doing.

Ultimately, right now we stand against people like Barack Obama and Michael Bloomberg and Nancy Pelosi who all hunger for power and control over our lives. At a time like this, it’s appropriate to be questioning as many rules on the books as possible, and challenging the notion that government makes laws in our best interest. If we can’t keep up the fight when they’re at the gates…then we might as well open them and welcome our new overlords.

I’m not saying that those who oppose legalization should change their minds…but let’s not hold up big government as a beacon of societal benevolence just because it fits the argument.

MadisonConservative on March 25, 2013 at 10:21 PM

Also, there is a big spirits lobby and I heard they make it impossible brew and distribute your own.

And by the way, I’m genuinely interested in this. Any articles or videos you have about it? I seem to recall an episode of Penn and Teller’s Bulls**t! covering a couple of families making moonshine that got nailed even though they weren’t selling it.

MadisonConservative on March 25, 2013 at 10:23 PM

Is there a “need” (or insert function if you so wish) that serves the public if the law is repealed?

What would be your answer to the same question regarding the >16 oz drink ban in New York?

Yes. The discussion has to start somewhere and if the answer is a resounding H#LL YES, then so be it.

Isn’t that essentially why there are laws – they serve a public “need”? The silly ones get repealed, the sane ones don’t – at least in a perfect world.

Is there service to society if everyone is nonfunctioning (drugged to the gills)?

Emotional again. This is a red herring. Legalizing marijuana would not mean that “everyone is drugged to the gills”, which again you refuse to define. People who want to get high already are. If marijuana was legalized, the majority of people who would legally try it would be like the majority who have already tried it – that is, they would try it once or twice, and probably never bother again. I swear, some of you seem to think that every American is one repealed law away from creating Sodom and Gomorrah.

Have you noticed that society is becoming less mentally strong and less capable of controlling themselves? I have absolutely no doubt that with the liberal “anything goes” mentality and narcissism (that word again) of the average person that in time the slippery slope will get slipperier.

Haven’t you been paying attention? Society has been degenerating into a cesspool for the last 40 years. At this rate who knows what the heck will be happening in 10 years from now.

Using the argument of “they are already doing it” doesn’t make breaking the law any more acceptable.

And I submit ANY lawbreaker is selfish. Do you disagree with that assessment?

kim roy on March 25, 2013 at 9:49 PM

Absolutely, and your statement demonstrates obedience and allegiance to the state. Tell me, when the farmer in the UK went to prison for several years for killing two intruders, was he being selfish?

Did he care about the law before he broke it? If there’s a bad and potentially harmful law then work towards repealing it. Work towards getting people in office who are like minded.

Also, there should be some discretion afforded by the courts.

It’s not blind allegiance to appreciate the law and work as a community member to uphold laws and work towards getting rid of bad ones.

Or are there some laws that are okay to break? Who determines this? What if I like the “murder” law and think it’s silly?

When I had to travel through Chicago(in one of the worst areas), and I illegally conceal-carried my lawfully owned firearm in order to defend my and my wife’s life, was I being selfish?

Wasn’t aware there was only one road in Chicago.

If you are willing to break the law, then be willing to accept the consequences.

When you fail to report income to the IRS…are you being selfish?

Yeah, actually you are. Yes, the government wastes a butt load of money, but some of that does go to good use like roads, military, infrastructure. What makes you more special than your neighbor.

Again, if you don’t like it then work to elect the appropriate representatives.

Or accept that your law breaking will have the resulting consequences.

That’s what I love about people like you. You don’t like laws, think many of them are silly, but you really don’t see the chaos that would result if there wasn’t some sort of structure. You think everyone is lucid enough to make “the right decision and behave the right way”, but that isn’t so obviously.

It’s why we have laws. The few ruin it for the many.

“Selfish” is one of those lovely loaded words used when people decide that self-interest is suddenly inconvenient if it involves conduct you disagree with. Some think that the desire for gun rights, low taxes, less regulation, and union reform are all “selfish”. Both libertarians and the tea party are often called “selfish” because they don’t want their taxes raised, just like you…and you wield the word in the same way to fit your agenda.

“Selfish”, in politics, usually is nothing more than a shortened form of “what I feel is more important than your rights”.

MadisonConservative on March 25, 2013 at 10:05 PM

You mean like breaking laws arbitrarily because you don’t like them? You mean that kind of selfish?

I love, however, the building of this strawman of equating a major law repeal to something like raising taxes. Well done!

kim roy on March 25, 2013 at 10:35 PM

BTW – for the pot activists -
You cant roll and sell your own cigs. becoming a tobacco manufacturer and distributor is very hard to do.And unlike cannabis, the law does crack down on illegal cigarette sales. The same will happen if MJ is legalized and the lobby starts pushing regs.

BoxHead1 on March 25, 2013 at 10:08 PM

The 10 gallons of beer currently fermenting in my closet begs to differ.

powerfactor on March 25, 2013 at 11:08 PM

Yes. The discussion has to start somewhere and if the answer is a resounding H#LL YES, then so be it.

Isn’t that essentially why there are laws – they serve a public “need”? The silly ones get repealed, the sane ones don’t – at least in a perfect world.

What is that need, in the case of the soda ban? Tell me why people “need” more soda any more than they “need” marijuana.

Have you noticed that society is becoming less mentally strong and less capable of controlling themselves?

Okey doke. Now I have no idea if Michael Bloomberg just took over your account.

Did he care about the law before he broke it? If there’s a bad and potentially harmful law then work towards repealing it. Work towards getting people in office who are like minded.

kim roy on March 25, 2013 at 10:35 PM

This is all I need to read. If you are stating that the man in question should have followed the law and allowed himself to be at the mercy of two hostile invaders of his home, then we clearly do not see eye to eye. If you would put me in prison for defending myself and my wife as I did, then not only do we not see eye to eye, but I see you no differently than any liberal.

What I will say is that allegiance to the letter of the law does you no favors. That law can, and will, be used to destroy you if you continue to recognize it as higher than your rights.

MadisonConservative on March 26, 2013 at 12:17 AM

By the way, kim roy, I have one final question. What do you think of this quote?

I do think there are certain times we should infringe on your freedom

Sounds to me like you’re fine and dandy with it…as long as those infringements are law. How I wish our Founding Fathers had the fortitude you display, always bowing to government authority.

MadisonConservative on March 26, 2013 at 12:24 AM

Which all goes back to the initial argument about repealing a current law. Whether doing so is in the public interest.
Is there a “need” (or insert function if you so wish) that serves the public if the law is repealed?
Is there service to society if everyone is nonfunctioning (drugged to the gills)? Is this a good reason to repeal a law? Something we should consider?

I want you to take a second and think about what you’re arguing here, that the legality of an object is a byproduct of the “need” for it, as decided by, I dunno, whoever, you I guess. You’re arguing for violently enforced social utilitarianism, which is about as leftist as you can get.

And I submit ANY lawbreaker is selfish. Do you disagree with that assessment?

Yes, I am selfish. And so are statists like you. The difference is I see my selfish interest being served by letting people live their lives as they see fit, while apparently you see it as being served by abusing people who do things the collective arbitrarily decided wasn’t OK.

galenrox on March 26, 2013 at 1:04 AM

Haven’t any resident progressives shown up to argue that illegal drugs are only a problem in their cities because flyover country circumvents their strict drug laws?
 

in the UK they work like a charm, and they’d work in Chicago as well but for the lax gun laws in neighboring areas.
 
sesquipedalian on January 25, 2013 at 4:05 PM

 

Even though Chicago has strong gun laws, it cannot stop criminals and thugs from procuring their weapons from neighboring states with less stringent gun laws…this fact seems to escape gun supporters
 
nonpartisan on February 4, 2013 at 10:32 AM

 
Or is that different from illegal guns somehow?

rogerb on March 26, 2013 at 7:26 AM

MadisonConservative on March 26, 2013 at 12:17 AM

What did you do with your life?
Dude, I like totally spent it making sure degenerates could have their pot man! If a person cannot smoke dope, then what kind of life is it dude? What else is a person supposed to do with their spare time? Dude, you like got a light?

astonerii on March 26, 2013 at 7:45 AM

What did you do with your life?
Dude, I like totally spent it making sure degenerates could have their pot man! If a person cannot smoke dope, then what kind of life is it dude? What else is a person supposed to do with their spare time? Dude, you like got a light?

astonerii on March 26, 2013 at 7:45 AM

Yeah, or he spent part of his life preventing petty despots from ruining people’s lives over something as asinine as pot.

But how about you? What are you spending your life doing? Ruining people’s lives and spending billions of dollars of other people’s money to prevent people from REALLY enjoying Star Wars? Must be so proud.

galenrox on March 26, 2013 at 9:18 AM

galenrox on March 26, 2013 at 9:18 AM

I am trying to explain to morons like you that the welfare state is what is destroying your freedoms. So long as you would rather feed the welfare state more victims who will vote for more welfare state, then you are the enemy. The first step in having freedom is have personal responsibility. I really do not think there are many libertarians who understand this concept anymore.

I AM NOT GOING TO INCREASE MY BURDEN OF SUPPORT FOR DEGENERATES, I HAVE THE RIGHT TO MY LIBERTY. when your liberty infringes upon mine, there is a problem. Get your grubby little paws out of my pocket, and I will be happy to let you do what you want with your life, because when you fail, I will have power over you in how I chose to help you.

astonerii on March 26, 2013 at 9:25 AM

I am trying to explain to morons like you that the welfare state is what is destroying your freedoms. So long as you would rather feed the welfare state more victims who will vote for more welfare state, then you are the enemy. The first step in having freedom is have personal responsibility. I really do not think there are many libertarians who understand this concept anymore.

I AM NOT GOING TO INCREASE MY BURDEN OF SUPPORT FOR DEGENERATES, I HAVE THE RIGHT TO MY LIBERTY. when your liberty infringes upon mine, there is a problem. Get your grubby little paws out of my pocket, and I will be happy to let you do what you want with your life, because when you fail, I will have power over you in how I chose to help you.

astonerii on March 26, 2013 at 9:25 AM

Then we should eliminate cigarettes and junk food, as obesity and smoking are whats driving our insane medical costs

snoopicus on March 26, 2013 at 9:43 AM

I am trying to explain to morons like you that the welfare state is what is destroying your freedoms. So long as you would rather feed the welfare state more victims who will vote for more welfare state, then you are the enemy. The first step in having freedom is have personal responsibility. I really do not think there are many libertarians who understand this concept anymore.

I AM NOT GOING TO INCREASE MY BURDEN OF SUPPORT FOR DEGENERATES, I HAVE THE RIGHT TO MY LIBERTY. when your liberty infringes upon mine, there is a problem. Get your grubby little paws out of my pocket, and I will be happy to let you do what you want with your life, because when you fail, I will have power over you in how I chose to help you.

astonerii on March 26, 2013 at 9:25 AM

Also when you lock people up you support them, how do you think it works???

snoopicus on March 26, 2013 at 9:45 AM

I’m not saying that those who oppose legalization should change their minds…but let’s not hold up big government as a beacon of societal benevolence just because it fits the argument.

MadisonConservative on March 25, 2013 at 10:21 PM

There problem is that they are like liberals talking about guns, clueless. There arguments are based on ignorance.

snoopicus on March 26, 2013 at 9:55 AM

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

How much alcohol have you bought from the mafia?

snoopicus on March 26, 2013 at 9:57 AM

“I SUPPORT BIG GOVERNMENT BECAUSE BIG GOVERNMENT WILL PROTECT MY LIBERTY FROM PEOPLE WHO USE THEIR LIBERTY TO DO THINKS I DO NOT APPROVE OF!”

Do I have that right?

Jeddite on March 26, 2013 at 9:59 AM

Then we should eliminate cigarettes and junk food, as obesity and smoking are whats driving our insane medical costs

snoopicus on March 26, 2013 at 9:43 AM

You could go that far. I am not willing to work towards that direction. I am just willing to leave that which is already illegal illegal. Maybe you will get frustrated enough to start working to get rid of the welfare state, instead of spending all your energy trying to destroy what little is left of this nation.

Also when you lock people up you support them, how do you think it works???

snoopicus on March 26, 2013 at 9:45 AM

As a deterrent to others from following in their foot steps moron. I guess you think we should not put people in prison for theft, assault, murder, fraud or any other thing we currently do it for.

It costs us far more money to lock those people up than it saves the nation from their individual harms in almost every single case. But of course, if we did not lock those people up, then more people would resort to doing the same things. The death sentence for an murderer of a single person can cost the state over 3 million dollars. Why not save that money?

astonerii on March 26, 2013 at 10:03 AM

“I SUPPORT BIG GOVERNMENT BECAUSE BIG GOVERNMENT WILL PROTECT MY LIBERTY FROM PEOPLE WHO USE THEIR LIBERTY TO DO THINKS I DO NOT APPROVE OF!”

Do I have that right?

Jeddite on March 26, 2013 at 9:59 AM

How is your use of degenerate drugs that cause your life to be less than it could be, and with a high chance far in excess of the norm to become a ward of the state where my tax dollars are forcible taken from my pocket not big government?

Cost of the welfare state in 2011 was $1,950,000,000,000. Cost of the war on drugs, The U.S. federal government spent over $15 billion dollars in 2010 on the War on Drugs.

2 orders of magnitude more costly.

astonerii on March 26, 2013 at 10:08 AM

As a deterrent to others from following in their foot steps moron. I guess you think we should not put people in prison for theft, assault, murder, fraud or any other thing we currently do it for.

It costs us far more money to lock those people up than it saves the nation from their individual harms in almost every single case. But of course, if we did not lock those people up, then more people would resort to doing the same things. The death sentence for an murderer of a single person can cost the state over 3 million dollars. Why not save that money?

astonerii on March 26, 2013 at 10:03 AM

If you want to save money quit sending nonviolent drug offenders to jail, thats what im trying to argue moron

Your original argument was

I am trying to explain to morons like you that the welfare state is what is destroying your freedoms. So long as you would rather feed the welfare state more victims who will vote for more welfare state, then you are the enemy. The first step in having freedom is have personal responsibility. I really do not think there are many libertarians who understand this concept anymore.

But in the current system sending people to jail for weed is feeding the welfare state. Its your preferred policy thats pumping up the big government welfare state

snoopicus on March 26, 2013 at 10:10 AM

It costs us far more money to lock those people up than it saves the nation from their individual harms in almost every single case. But of course, if we did not lock those people up, then more people would resort to doing the same things. The death sentence for an murderer of a single person can cost the state over 3 million dollars. Why not save that money?

astonerii on March 26, 2013 at 10:03 AM

Right, and if we dont send non violent drug offenders to jail then we dont spend the money. Per the first sentence of your argument you agree that the cost of incarceration outweighs the societal benefit. Why would you push a policy that you argue is a bad investment?

snoopicus on March 26, 2013 at 10:12 AM

Cost of the welfare state in 2011 was $1,950,000,000,000. Cost of the war on drugs, The U.S. federal government spent over $15 billion dollars in 2010 on the War on Drugs.

2 orders of magnitude more costly.

astonerii on March 26, 2013 at 10:08 AM

Thats really a disingenuous number and you know it. Thats only federal DEA/ATF money. That doesnt count incarceration costs, state and local law enforcement, court and attorney costs, or any of the other real costs we are actually talking about.

snoopicus on March 26, 2013 at 10:15 AM

It comes from your pro drug buddies. Take it up with their anuses.

astonerii on March 26, 2013 at 10:19 AM

Errr no it came from your post, which I quoted, that you are pretending is true. Also no reason to get all weird and sorta gay, i leave their anuses to you champ

snoopicus on March 26, 2013 at 10:24 AM

It’s why we have laws. The few ruin it for the many.

And laws shouldn’t be punishing the many for the sins of a few. Just because some stoners waste their brains doesn’t mean MJ should be prohibited from responsible casual users. Just because a few churches in town regard alcohol as evil doesn’t mean all stores in town should be banned from selling liquor. Just because some irresponsible gay activist militants are pushing for giving condoms and gay-sex instructions to kindergarteners doesn’t mean civilized, responsible same-sex couples should be barred from marriage benefits or adopting/raising kids. The laws we want should be targeting the handful of criminals rather than banning things from the entire general public.

TMOverbeck on March 26, 2013 at 10:25 AM

Right, and if we dont send non violent drug offenders to jail then we dont spend the money. Per the first sentence of your argument you agree that the cost of incarceration outweighs the societal benefit. Why would you push a policy that you argue is a bad investment?

snoopicus on March 26, 2013 at 10:12 AM

Because those people who are in jail are examples for other people who then tend to chose better on the norm. The cost of sending thieves to prison far outweighs the direct harm the individuals cause. But imagine the nation with no laws against theft or fraud. Do you think more or less people would partake in those activities?

The cost savings is in preventing people from choosing the path in the first place. I think we should be much more strict in our enforcement of the law. More people should be in jail. Total cost of our prison system per year is $55 billion. Quite the far cry from the 2 trillion we spend on the welfare state. Of that, only $13.8 billion is spent on drug offenders. Still two full magnitudes below the cost of the welfare state.

astonerii on March 26, 2013 at 10:26 AM

TMOverbeck on March 26, 2013 at 10:25 AM

you seem to twist things quite nicely. Suddenly the tiny minority of gays have the right to force straight couples to recognize them as equals…

You b!tch about minorities ruining it for the majority, but all those laws require majorities to pass.

astonerii on March 26, 2013 at 10:29 AM

astonerii on March 26, 2013 at 10:19 AM

You’re one sick statist.

MadisonConservative on March 26, 2013 at 10:35 AM

Quite the far cry from the 2 trillion we spend on the welfare state. Of that, only $13.8 billion is spent on drug offenders. Still two full magnitudes below the cost of the welfare state.

astonerii on March 26, 2013 at 10:26 AM

So why not save that money, I mean your not making much a point. Your still spending money on an ineffective policy, Im not talking about more serious crime like rape, murder, etc. No one on this thread except you is, seriously dude try to focus and stay on topic. THe topic is sending non-violent drug offenders to jail. Also your numbers are bad again, incarceration costs were closer to 63 billion and about half of those are non violent drug offenders. But again why destroy there lives over getting caught with 50 bucks worth of weed.

snoopicus on March 26, 2013 at 10:35 AM

snoopicus on March 26, 2013 at 10:35 AM

You spend the money to save more money. You lower the number of drug users, those who are deterred have better lives and create more wealth. There are also frequently (THINK OF THE CHILDREN) children involved, as children of these drug users, who make terrible spouses and even worse parents. Leading to more destroyed lives.

Libertarians seem to be single level thinking organisms. You prove it by failing to see the connections between activity and consequences.

Like I said, toss the welfare state, and I will not work to thwart your desire to shove kilograms of cocaine down your nose in one sitting. Then when your life is ruined, I am not held liable for it.

astonerii on March 26, 2013 at 10:42 AM

You spend the money to save more money.
astonerii on March 26, 2013 at 10:42 AM

That line make you a good democrat. In all honesty this is the difficulty of politics, neither of us can prove which of our schemes would be cheaper. There are real costs, both financial and human, of either option. A drugged up parent probs isnt a good parent, but neither is a parent behind bars. Both cost money, and there is no way to really know which costs more. But to argue that you spend money and curtail freedoms to save money later makes you a conservative democrat

snoopicus on March 26, 2013 at 10:47 AM

You spend the money to save more money.

astonerii on March 26, 2013 at 10:42 AM

Huh.

MadisonConservative on March 26, 2013 at 10:49 AM

That line make you a good democrat. In all honesty this is the difficulty of politics, neither of us can prove which of our schemes would be cheaper. There are real costs, both financial and human, of either option. A drugged up parent probs isnt a good parent, but neither is a parent behind bars. Both cost money, and there is no way to really know which costs more. But to argue that you spend money and curtail freedoms to save money later makes you a conservative democrat

snoopicus on March 26, 2013 at 10:47 AM

So, you are going to argue that prevention does not save more money?

Sure there is a way to know which one costs more. The person in prison costing 24k a year is not making new babies. The cost of the person on welfare far exceeds 24k per year. Lowering the total number of drug users through prevention lowers both populations.

Drug use and criminality are very positively correlated
No study has failed to find the correlation
Users of Drugs are extremely more likely to:
Participate in a wide variety of criminal activity
Engage in more violent crime
Engage in more serious crime
The more one uses drugs, the more likely one is to be involved in criminal activity
One of the FEW established and agreed upon links

There was a perfect, stepwise increase of likelihood of criminal activity related to the extent of involvement with the drug: The more one used a drug the greater the likelihood of engaging in a range of criminal activity.

But hey. Single issue no consequences viewed mindsets like yours!

astonerii on March 26, 2013 at 10:59 AM

MadisonConservative on March 26, 2013 at 10:49 AM

You spend prevention dollars to lower the cost of activity dollars. If you do not understand this concept, then why are you even here?

I built a damn on the stream to prevent it from flooding my house. The dam cost x% of the value of my property and prevents Y amount of damage several times over during my ownership of the home. The small lake formed is a great place to watch turtles and fish and many times birds. I spent money in order to save money.

astonerii on March 26, 2013 at 11:03 AM

You spend prevention dollars to lower the cost of activity dollars.

astonerii on March 26, 2013 at 11:03 AM

Yep. Same argument used for ObamaCare. “We’re going to spend your money now so we don’t have to spend more of your money later.” And guess what? Your way is doing nothing to confront the welfare state(and actually making it worse), just like Obama’s way is doing nothing to confront the health care crisis(and actually making it worse).

Successful statism – when you manage to spend a fortune and make people’s lives worse by making more of them criminals.

Seriously, wake up. You’re complicit in something that will only hurt you one day.

MadisonConservative on March 26, 2013 at 11:12 AM

MadisonConservative on March 26, 2013 at 11:12 AM

I love to disagree with morons. Why it is so enjoyable to discuss things with you.

The welfare state is BIG GOVERNMENT. Drug users are a large proportion of the welfare state. Adding more drug users, like importing tens of millions of low earning immigrants, only increases the use of the welfare state, adding more people who will vote for the welfare state.

These massive increases in welfare usage is what you build a damn against if you are conservative, and if you are liberal work to increase the flow to flood levels if you are progressive.

You work to increase the flow of people into the welfare state, the real big government aspect of our nation.

I work to prevent the flooding of the welfare state.

astonerii on March 26, 2013 at 11:27 AM

astonerii on March 26, 2013 at 11:27 AM

How many more drug users will be added to the welfare rolls as a result of marijuana legalization? Please be sure to cite your claims. I’d like to know about these millions of marijuana junkies that have restraint because it’s illegal.

MadisonConservative on March 26, 2013 at 12:01 PM

How is your use of degenerate drugs that cause your life to be less than it could be, and with a high chance far in excess of the norm to become a ward of the state where my tax dollars are forcible taken from my pocket not big government?

Cost of the welfare state in 2011 was $1,950,000,000,000. Cost of the war on drugs, The U.S. federal government spent over $15 billion dollars in 2010 on the War on Drugs.

2 orders of magnitude more costly.

astonerii on March 26, 2013 at 10:08 AM

Point of order: Jeddite does not use degenerate drugs (and wont even so much as take a Tylenol under his head is going to explode). The use of “you” is likely second-person non-specific, but let’s get it on the record.

I also prefer pre-employment drug screens because I consider it a “competitive advantage” (and in this economy, I’ll take whatever advantage over other applicants that I can get).

I also support drug screens for welfare applicants. Monthly.
I think I could be easily persuaded that “funemployment” should be subject to drug screens for eligibility.

Jeddite on March 26, 2013 at 12:13 PM

How many more drug users will be added to the welfare rolls as a result of marijuana legalization? Please be sure to cite your claims. I’d like to know about these millions of marijuana junkies that have restraint because it’s illegal.

MadisonConservative on March 26, 2013 at 12:01 PM

Wait a minute… You are only for a single drug to be made legal?
What is up with that? What about crack, cocaine, meth, heroin, opium and the rest? I thought you were a libertarian?

yeah, I deflected, pound sand!

astonerii on March 26, 2013 at 12:18 PM

Jeddite on March 26, 2013 at 12:13 PM

Point of order: the person you’re debating with would willingly accuse Mr. Rogers of being a pothead if he disagreed with him on the issue.

MadisonConservative on March 26, 2013 at 12:19 PM

yeah, I deflected, pound sand!

astonerii on March 26, 2013 at 12:18 PM

At least you’re honest about making things up. That’s about the only difference between you and any other statist.

MadisonConservative on March 26, 2013 at 12:21 PM

Jeddite on March 26, 2013 at 12:13 PM

Those are all good things. Problem being that as long as welfare exists, they will get their funds, just like the illegals still get welfare. I pay for that. I am a net contributor, even after accounting for my disability payment from the VA.

Glad you are not a user, but then again, you support the user. I used to be the same way as you with respect to medicine. Still am to a high degree. I suffer migraines far longer than I might otherwise before I resort to taking a v!codin. Family history issue with prescription drugs thing.

Bureaucrats that run the offices that dispense the confiscated money have every incentive to give out benefits, almost no incentive to prevent false payments going out. Someone getting benefits who do not deserve them are very unlikely to complain. Those who feel unfairly denied what they are “entitled” to are very likely to complain and stick hard on making many problems. It is not there money.

Get rid of the welfare state, and I am happy to agree with you 100% on every aspect you said. I, like you, enjoy that benefit of passing a drug test and not having to compete with potential resume inflators who happen to use drugs. I still have to deal with resume inflators.

astonerii on March 26, 2013 at 12:27 PM

At least you’re honest about making things up. That’s about the only difference between you and any other statist.

MadisonConservative on March 26, 2013 at 12:21 PM

I did not make anything up. There are people who would do drugs if there were no legal penalties for doing so. Many people who do drugs now would increase usage, as there is no longer limits on usage based on when they think it is safe. Walking around with lots of weed in the pocket will no longer be a problem.

Then again, you failed to respond to what other drugs become legal. The libertarian response MUST be all. Not just Pot. Where exactly do you place the limit?

astonerii on March 26, 2013 at 12:31 PM

astonerii on March 26, 2013 at 12:27 PM

I agree with dismantling the welfare state. That is, reducing it to actual, temporary assistance for the genuinely needy. The nation can’t go from the out-of-control status quo to nil (I certainly wouldn’t stand in the way if it was possible). So getting abolishing the welfare state in one fell swoop (or two) isn’t feasible, but systematically introducing changes intended to reduce the scope (say, by requiring drug screens for benefits) is how to get started working towards a shared vision/goal (no more welfare state). It’s going to take decades and generations to do at even (what I consider) a feasible speed, but the nation didnt get to where we are now within a single presidency either.

Tangentially, that’s one reason why I supported Romney. I didn’t expect Romney to slash federal budgets by 50% (or more) like I’d want him to. Still, I did think that if Romney/Paul could go from Obama’s “trillions are the new billions” spendathon to a balanced budget (or whatever), then that might open up the possibility of Romney’s successor tossing the federal budget into a fiscal woodchipper. Or set some groundwork for ramping up on further dismantling of the welfare state.

Jeddite on March 26, 2013 at 12:51 PM

I did not make anything up. There are people who would do drugs if there were no legal penalties for doing so.

How many people? Three people? Four people? Do you have a sliver of evidence to back up your claim that it would be enough to cause even a slightly significant increase in the welfare rolls?

Many people who do drugs now would increase usage, as there is no longer limits on usage based on when they think it is safe.

How many, and by how much? Provide evidence that it will be any more than the three stoners next door to you that won’t turn the Marley down.

Walking around with lots of weed in the pocket will no longer be a problem.

So the problem is merely possessing it, not smoking it?

Then again, you failed to respond to what other drugs become legal. The libertarian response MUST be all. Not just Pot. Where exactly do you place the limit?

astonerii on March 26, 2013 at 12:31 PM

Lying again. I made my opinion about other drugs known posts back, and if you cared, you’d have read it. I’m not going to repeat it just because you’re sloppy.

MadisonConservative on March 26, 2013 at 1:00 PM

I am trying to explain to morons like you that the welfare state is what is destroying your freedoms. So long as you would rather feed the welfare state more victims who will vote for more welfare state, then you are the enemy. The first step in having freedom is have personal responsibility. I really do not think there are many libertarians who understand this concept anymore.

I AM NOT GOING TO INCREASE MY BURDEN OF SUPPORT FOR DEGENERATES, I HAVE THE RIGHT TO MY LIBERTY. when your liberty infringes upon mine, there is a problem. Get your grubby little paws out of my pocket, and I will be happy to let you do what you want with your life, because when you fail, I will have power over you in how I chose to help you.

astonerii on March 26, 2013 at 9:25 AM

Get MY grubby little hands out of your pocket? Right, I work 60 hours a week because I am at best apprehensive as to what I would find were I to need to reach into your pockets.

But let me get this straight, in order to dismantle the welfare state you want to force more people into government provided housing, have the government provide them food for years on end, have the government provide them all of their amenities (television, books, education, work, exercise facilities, etc.). And this makes sense to you…how?

Considering how quickly you flipped out, I think you might want to give reefer a try.

galenrox on March 26, 2013 at 1:01 PM

Jeddite on March 26, 2013 at 12:51 PM

And the reason I oppose legalized drugs is because I am certain it will make dismantling the welfare state harder. So, that is where we are. I do not want to increase welfare rolls. Some people want to legalize drugs that most certainly will swell those rolls.

The side who wants the change first has to admit the reasoning behind current situation. Then they have to prove that the reasoning is false and that their reasoning is sound. Then I will contemplate changing the status quo.

The reason drugs were made illegal is that their usage causes the entire community to bear additional burdens. The degenerate (drug users) rely on the virtuous for their livelihood due to their reduced ability to provide for themselves and their families. Their drug use degrades the value of their children to society, adding additional burdens. The virtuous over produce and over produce to make up for the short fall, but as they do, more and more people become overburdened and choose to live the life of the degenerate, why not, free money to buy cheap drugs. Eventually the society stops advancing and in fact begins to decline, sometimes though the burden alone and other times when outside forces add even more burdens, such as a drought, flood or massive fire. The virtuous try to get the degenerates to start pulling their own weight, which of course is a losing battle through peer pressure when the degenerates can use the force of the state to take the money from the virtuous. Then the virtuous turn to their only recourse, using the power of the state to restrict the the degenerate lifestyle.

As long as we have the welfare state, for which they can fall back on, degenerates have the upper hand. Welfare checks go out whether the state has the money or not. There is no limit on the usage. It is called mandatory spending and it has no set value.

astonerii on March 26, 2013 at 1:02 PM

galenrox on March 26, 2013 at 1:01 PM

I work 40 hours a week, and have not been without a job for more than a year since I’ve been 12.

You have to realize that people like the guy you’re talking to literally see anyone who uses drugs, even just pot, as some sort of jobless, brainless, useless caricature from a horror movie. If anyone they know has ever used drugs and not handled it well, that caricature is galvanized. Really, it’s little different than liberals seeing any Tea Party member as a racist, foaming, conspiracy-theory-loving nutjob in 18th-century garb that wants homeless people and old people to die.

MadisonConservative on March 26, 2013 at 1:06 PM

I did not make anything up. There are people who would do drugs if there were no legal penalties for doing so.

How many people? Three people? Four people? Do you have a sliver of evidence to back up your claim that it would be enough to cause even a slightly significant increase in the welfare rolls?

You are asking for change. It is your burden of proof, not mine.

Many people who do drugs now would increase usage, as there is no longer limits on usage based on when they think it is safe.

How many, and by how much? Provide evidence that it will be any more than the three stoners next door to you that won’t turn the Marley down.

Again, your burden of proof they are not there.

Walking around with lots of weed in the pocket will no longer be a problem.

So the problem is merely possessing it, not smoking it?

Having it always handy and not worried that you might get busted carrying it means they will use more on average than if they were restricted to private places in seclusion.

Then again, you failed to respond to what other drugs become legal. The libertarian response MUST be all. Not just Pot. Where exactly do you place the limit?

astonerii on March 26, 2013 at 12:31 PM

Lying again. I made my opinion about other drugs known posts back, and if you cared, you’d have read it. I’m not going to repeat it just because you’re sloppy.

MadisonConservative on March 26, 2013 at 1:00 PM

You did not make it very clear. I remember reading it and wondering what your position was on it. You said: I tend to agree with you that they will never be legalized, but whether they should or not is something I’m unsure about. Personally, I see coke and heroin and all the harder drugs as stupid, reckless, dangerous indulgences…

Of course, that is why you refuse to really talk about them. You do not want people to understand the direction you are really wanting to go. Was it you complaining earlier that you really hate that the liberals do not tell you what there real end goal is?

You really argue all those should be accessible to anyone age 18 and over, and by coincidence, that means people younger will still be able to get them, and as legal items they will be less likely to be locked in little chests in the mom and dad closet.

But consequences means nothing, the only thing that matter is what indulgences you demand to have available to you that other people can be held liable for.

One aspect of jeddite that I failed to respond to was drugs and welfare. The drugs might get you put on disability, so continued usage of drugs on welfare for those drug tests might not be efficient at ending their usage of welfare.

In the end though, I refuse to extend any additional dangerous indulgences to degenerates so they can end up on welfare picking my pocket.

you should really stand on the side of getting rid of welfare, and then my argument is moot. Like I said, I am perfectly happy to let people self destruct as long as I have a say in how my money is used.

astonerii on March 26, 2013 at 1:15 PM

MadisonConservative on March 26, 2013 at 1:06 PM

More as POTENTIAL jobless losers. Legalized allows more of them to get to that point of being too degraded to self support.

astonerii on March 26, 2013 at 1:17 PM

THREE presidents – clinton bush obama.

Old Country Boy on March 26, 2013 at 1:19 PM

More as POTENTIAL jobless losers. Legalized allows more of them to get to that point of being too degraded to self support.

astonerii on March 26, 2013 at 1:17 PM

So if it were legal, those people that are currently buying all the drugs they like would…suddenly buy more just because. It’s only the illegality of the substance keeping them from REALLY going over the edge.

Just like the illegality of firearms in Chicago is keeping them from being used in crimes. If they were made legal, there’d be BLOOD IN THE STREETS!!!!!!!!1111

MadisonConservative on March 26, 2013 at 1:20 PM

you should really stand on the side of getting rid of welfare, and then my argument is moot. Like I said, I am perfectly happy to let people self destruct as long as I have a say in how my money is used.

astonerii on March 26, 2013 at 1:15 PM

My other post hasn’t shown up yet, but I’d like to point out that I want the welfare state reformed as much as you do. I’m only 30 and I’ve been paying into it for most of my life. Despite not being able to find a job for months several years ago, I have never taken a single penny of unemployment. The only government aid I’ve gotten has been student loans which I’m currently paying off, and I DON’T want a bailout even though the amount is daunting.

So stop telling me where I stand. Being pro-legalization and anti-welfare state are not mutually exclusive. You have yet to provide proof of otherwise, meaning you have yet to provide proof that any new users of weed would cause even a SLIGHTLY significant increase in the welfare rolls. Those rolls are already fat with parasites, who are already disobeying the law and smoking, snorting, injecting, and doing everything else with the drugs they want. The idea that legalization will magically uncover tons of junkies who were held back by the law is as silly as the gun control nuts who say that more guns in the hands of law-abiding citizens will lead to more gun crime.

MadisonConservative on March 26, 2013 at 1:41 PM

So stop telling me where I stand. Being pro-legalization and anti-welfare state are not mutually exclusive.

MadisonConservative on March 26, 2013 at 1:41 PM

They are mutually exclusive, the fact that you will ignore this fact is a terrible blight on your argument. You cannot reform something by adding new members to it. The people on welfare vote consistently for more welfare. If you do not see a connection to using a drug that damages your brain and welfare, it is not the fault of sober judgement.

I also do not use government benefits outside military and probably the same period of unemployment you had after Bush tanked the economy. None of my unemployment came from the federal government outside of the $25 weekly additional they added for some stupid reason.

You just cannot reform entitlements by growing them. Adding end users is a fools quest.

astonerii on March 26, 2013 at 1:49 PM

astonerii on March 26, 2013 at 1:02 PM

(I’m currently at work, so I can only type out a response one or two thoughts at a time…)

I can appreciate the analogy/allusion of Aesop’s ants (the virtuous) and grasshopper (the degenerates). And for the most part, I do agree. Our differences here seem moreso around how we get to the same end result (abolishment/reformation of the welfare state) and what we do in the interim.

I can also appreciate the apprehension that decriminalization/legalization will lead to additional users. True, marijuana could remain illegal while implementing drug screens for welfare benefits. Still, I maintain that any means/method that increases the government’s power is the wrong direction. It could be argued that requiring welfare recipients to pass a drug screen to receive benefits is an expansion of government. I could see that, maybe. But even in that case, I would perceive it as a matter of “two steps forward, one step back” — in contrast to the current system of no steps forward at all (best case) or a consistent slow march backward (worst case). I am inclined to think that the expansion of a police state necessarily also increases the expansion of the welfare state.

Could the decriminalization/legalization lead to additional mooches on the welfare rolls? Yes, I can anticipate how it would. Thusly it becomes necessary to implement drug screens for welfare benefits. The more responsible MJ users (and verily they do exist – we just dont tend to see them stoned our of their minds in public or on TV) will likely not end up on the public dole (as they arent now). The less responsible will find themselves in a situation where they must choose between their addiction and their welfare benefits. Will some reform? I think so. Will others not? Undoubtedly.

When a degenerate can no longer receive benefits from the state, that will assuredly create a sense of desperation. Still, some of them may be forced to seek assistance from the church/charity – these are the right places for public assistance, not the government. I would assume that most churches/charities would provide an addict with a warm meal, or a bed for the night. Still, the church/charity would be right to expect some repentance/reform on the part of the user – and, again, I think these institutions would have better success in helping the fallen better themselves than the government.

Jeddite on March 26, 2013 at 1:51 PM

So if it were legal, those people that are currently buying all the drugs they like would…suddenly buy more just because. It’s only the illegality of the substance keeping them from REALLY going over the edge.

Just like the illegality of firearms in Chicago is keeping them from being used in crimes. If they were made legal, there’d be BLOOD IN THE STREETS!!!!!!!!1111

MadisonConservative on March 26, 2013 at 1:20 PM

The illegality of firearms in Chicago prevents the citizens from fighting back against those who own their guns illegally in every respect. Those who are virtuous are prevented from using their rightful power to enforce their cultural mores. Giving the degenerates power over the virtuous.

This is similar to the fact that the welfare state prevents the citizens from using cultural mores against degenerates, because the degenerates have an ABSOLUTE RIGHT to take the citizens money through the third party of the federal government. Giving the degenerates power over the virtuous.

astonerii on March 26, 2013 at 1:55 PM

They are mutually exclusive, the fact that you will ignore this fact is a terrible blight on your argument.

astonerii on March 26, 2013 at 1:49 PM

In other words, “nuh uh”. *sigh*

MadisonConservative on March 26, 2013 at 2:00 PM

When a degenerate can no longer receive benefits from the state, that will assuredly create a sense of desperation. Still, some of them may be forced to seek assistance from the church/charity – these are the right places for public assistance, not the government. I would assume that most churches/charities would provide an addict with a warm meal, or a bed for the night. Still, the church/charity would be right to expect some repentance/reform on the part of the user – and, again, I think these institutions would have better success in helping the fallen better themselves than the government.

Jeddite on March 26, 2013 at 1:51 PM

This sounds like my ideal.

I do not want to deny help to people. But I do not want them to have absolute power for that help circumventing the ability of the community to have some say. I prefer voluntary charity.

I also agree, some people can responsibly use drugs. I have not taken any illicit drugs in my life, with a potential possible when my drink was spiked at a bar. But I know I do not have any addictive aspects to my nature. I stop drinking soda every so often, to make certain I am in control. Two weeks ago I stopped for a week. The next week I set it to a single can a day, although I did have two on Wednesday more of the fact that the baby drank the last of the juice and I did not want to wait for the water filter to pour me a glass. This week two cans per day. Morning, afternoon.

Weird thing is that I gained weight despite the cut in soda… grrrr

astonerii on March 26, 2013 at 2:04 PM

Two words for Mr. Paul: Personal responsibility.

The state doesn’t ‘ruin’ that drug offenders life. The drug offender makes a conscious decision to break the law. That individual felt mature enough to make that decision. That person is mature enough to face the consequences of that decision and action.

thatsafactjack on March 26, 2013 at 2:11 PM

I also agree, some people can responsibly use drugs. I have not taken any illicit drugs in my life, with a potential possible when my drink was spiked at a bar. But I know I do not have any addictive aspects to my nature. I stop drinking soda every so often, to make certain I am in control. Two weeks ago I stopped for a week. The next week I set it to a single can a day, although I did have two on Wednesday more of the fact that the baby drank the last of the juice and I did not want to wait for the water filter to pour me a glass. This week two cans per day. Morning, afternoon.

Weird thing is that I gained weight despite the cut in soda… grrrr

astonerii on March 26, 2013 at 2:04 PM

So why don’t you demand restrictions on soda? I worked registers in Wal-Mart while in college, and I assure you, those with food stamps are buying lots of soda and other junk food(frozen pizza is a favorite). These are often people on disability because they’re so unhealthy. If you want to reduce the welfare rolls through restricting what substances they put in their body, why doesn’t it extend to soda or junk food?

MadisonConservative on March 26, 2013 at 2:15 PM

So why don’t you demand restrictions on soda? I worked registers in Wal-Mart while in college, and I assure you, those with food stamps are buying lots of soda and other junk food(frozen pizza is a favorite). These are often people on disability because they’re so unhealthy. If you want to reduce the welfare rolls through restricting what substances they put in their body, why doesn’t it extend to soda or junk food?

MadisonConservative on March 26, 2013 at 2:15 PM

One, it is legal now. I already said, I am more of the status quo person. Drugs are illegal now. I would be happy to increase enforcement and incarceration to push the number of users further down, but not to legalize them.

Drinking soda does not cause people to end up on welfare. It does not DEPRESS a person’s mental abilities, does not lead to disability or a lack of work opportunities.

I already said, my PRIMARY goal is the dismantling of the welfare state. Adding to the welfare population is part I will not agree to.

astonerii on March 26, 2013 at 2:22 PM

Drinking soda does not cause people to end up on welfare. It does not DEPRESS a person’s mental abilities, does not lead to disability or a lack of work opportunities.

astonerii on March 26, 2013 at 2:22 PM

This is the biggest load of crap you’ve shoveled yet. What happens to a person who drinks soda all the time? They get overweight, and less productive. Their inability to do basic tasks affects their work performance, as well as their general life quality. This has a far more devastating effect on welfare rolls, and you either don’t know that, or you do and you’re dodging it just like you dodged earlier.

You’re comparing that to a 2-4 hour high from a joint. By your standard, marijuana no more causes people to end up on welfare than soda.

My real problem is that you’ve admitted to the fact that responsible people can and do use cannabis in moderation, yet you seem to feel that the effects from the drug are responsible for all the welfare ills. You justify this by saying you are a status quo guy(which in and of itself has its questions), but then does that mean you think what New York’s mayor has been doing is a good thing? If not, why shouldn’t the same attitude be taken retroactively?

MadisonConservative on March 26, 2013 at 2:44 PM

Seriously? My 1:30ish post still hasn’t shown up? Some of the drug names must have tripped the moderation.

MadisonConservative on March 26, 2013 at 2:57 PM

This is the biggest load of crap you’ve shoveled yet. What happens to a person who drinks soda all the time? They get overweight, and less productive. Their inability to do basic tasks affects their work performance, as well as their general life quality. This has a far more devastating effect on welfare rolls, and you either don’t know that, or you do and you’re dodging it just like you dodged earlier.

You’re comparing that to a 2-4 hour high from a joint. By your standard, marijuana no more causes people to end up on welfare than soda.

My real problem is that you’ve admitted to the fact that responsible people can and do use cannabis in moderation, yet you seem to feel that the effects from the drug are responsible for all the welfare ills. You justify this by saying you are a status quo guy(which in and of itself has its questions), but then does that mean you think what New York’s mayor has been doing is a good thing? If not, why shouldn’t the same attitude be taken retroactively?

MadisonConservative on March 26, 2013 at 2:44 PM

No, that is not your real problem. Earlier it was that people were using the arguments of the left. Then it was something else. Your real problem, and this is one you really need to learn is, I do not have to view the world through your drug hazed eyes. I do not use drugs, I never have, never had the desire to, and I detest that I have to take prescription level drugs to function and earn my living.

But what you are requesting is that I have find your views valid while you are a drug user, while you support drug users, who, by definition of their failure to control their animal instinctual impulses are less than stellar examples of mental acuity and self discipline. You expect me to take your argument that every last single potential drug user is already a user, despite the high price of the drugs, are consuming the absolute maximum level of drugs that they would ever consume at a lower price and that means that there is almost no potential to have people who find it enjoyable to get hazed so they can forget their life’s problems will not choose to have the state provide them a home, food, clothes and money to buy their low cost drug of choice. Once the legal consequences are reduced.

I do not buy it. I think that there is a sizable number of law abiding people in the nation who actually are fearful of being convicted of a drug offense who abstain just for that reason and that reason alone. That there is a sizable number of people who find the total cost of consuming illicit drugs to be prohibitive, at least enough to curtail their total consumption. I think that the illegality of possession and consumption limits the opportunities for many drug users to entertain their desired levels of consumption down to a few hours a day to some only able to have the privacy to do it on the weekend out of the house. I am very confident in what I think, because I too know users, and I know what they tell me. I also know people who claim to have wanted to take such and such, but damn, if I get caught, like Paul says, their life will be ruined.

In the end, all these things tell me that legal drugs will equate to higher numbers of drug users and their children on welfare. That will add additional votes to the pro welfare state cause and reduce votes for the anti welfare cause.

Like the gays though, I am sure if we hit the end of the line shortly after legalizing drugs, you will not want to be a known user when you are looking for tribe to join in your quest to survive.

The welfare state is the root cause of our problems. A few specific constitutional amendments led to the welfare state. It needs to end before this nation can regain its footing to be able to support additional deadbeats such as higher drug usage would create.

astonerii on March 26, 2013 at 3:04 PM

Seriously? My 1:30ish post still hasn’t shown up? Some of the drug names must have tripped the moderation.

MadisonConservative on March 26, 2013 at 2:57 PM

Sorry, happens to me sometimes. It usually shows up when the thread is like three pages longer… and thus never read.

astonerii on March 26, 2013 at 3:05 PM

No, that is not your real problem. Earlier it was that people were using the arguments of the left. Then it was something else. Your real problem, and this is one you really need to learn is, I do not have to view the world through your drug hazed eyes.

astonerii on March 26, 2013 at 3:04 PM

I should expect little more from “a stoner ii”. Just admit that you’re projecting.

MadisonConservative on March 26, 2013 at 3:06 PM

I’m not sure that my productivity went down, and I’m not entirely certain that I have more energy, but I will say that I do feel better now that I’ve stopped drinking 3+ sodas a day. I still have four twelve packs (Cherry Coke, Cherry Pepsi, Cherry 7-UP and Cherry Dr Pepper) that I purchased in May 2012 (third week). Still haven’t opened any of these 12-packs and I keep them around to remind myself how much I’ve not consumed since then. Oh sure, I still drink soda, but I try to restrict that to Fridays and weekends with meals. I keep only a few bottles of “Mexican Coke” in the fridge. Mexican Coke is made with real sugar and it’s so much better.

The point of this anecdote (mostly) is that I know what it’s like to be addicted to something (so far as soda “addiction” can be compared to cigarettes, alcohol, or drugs – marijuana or otherwise). I would never support any bans or restrictions on soda — purchased by private citizens with their own money. However, I am not opposed to limiting soda purchases with SNAP/EBT. I could be persuaded to either an outright ban, or to restrict soda purchases to store brands.

Jeddite on March 26, 2013 at 3:16 PM

Forget it. You’ve already admitted to dodging relevant questions, and now you’re doing nothing but employing ad hominem to CONTINUE to avoid answering questions. If you want to discuss actual arguments instead of just attacking someone based on your bulls**t perception of something you’ve never used and therefore don’t know the effects of, let me know. Until then, you’re no different than a snide liberal dismissing arguments because “you’re heartless” or “you’ve got white privilege” or “you’re in the employ of Big Oil/Gun companies/Fox News/etc”.

MadisonConservative on March 26, 2013 at 3:19 PM

However, I am not opposed to limiting soda purchases with SNAP/EBT. I could be persuaded to either an outright ban, or to restrict soda purchases to store brands.

Jeddite on March 26, 2013 at 3:16 PM

This won’t even matter. People at the grocery stores just re-enter the restricted items manually as being something else so that the purchase goes through. They have no interest in enforcing the law.

MadisonConservative on March 26, 2013 at 3:20 PM

MadisonConservative on March 26, 2013 at 3:19 PM

I dunno what that is a response to. But considering your entire argument is that you will fight tooth and nail in order to allow anyone to consume legally something that you claim as illegal does not prevent anyone from consuming and thus legalizing will have absolutely no negative consequences and nothing but blue skies from here til the end of time, I find it funny that you label me this way.

Look, I understand, DRUGS CONTROL YOUR LIFE. I got it. If drugs were legal, your life would be perfect. Great.

I earn enough money to actually pay tens of thousands of dollars to Uncle Sam every year, well, except last year and the year I was unemployed. Approximately 25%, depending on the state I live in at the time, of my wealth creation is consumed by someone else who does nothing for me or anyone for that matter in exchange for the money. Actually, it would be much higher, because the schools and several other aspects of government also do nothing for me, but for welfare payments, it is 25% of my wealth creation. I started work a bit older than you, 16, unless you consider helping my uncle and his handyman business, then I started several years younger than you. I am not willing to part with any more money. I want the drain on my family to end.

astonerii on March 26, 2013 at 3:39 PM

Look, I understand, DRUGSRACISM CONTROLS YOUR LIFE.

astonerii on March 26, 2013 at 3:39 PM

Thanks, Toure. Try another ad hominem as you continue to be a “status quo” guy. ObamaCare is status quo. Enjoy it.

MadisonConservative on March 26, 2013 at 3:59 PM

Thanks, Toure. Try another ad hominem as you continue to be a “status quo” guy. ObamaCare is status quo. Enjoy it.

MadisonConservative on March 26, 2013 at 3:59 PM

Your need to push for drug legalization indicates that it controls you.

You do not push for legalizing meth for instance, but the entire argument is exactly the same. People should be free to consume anything they want, no matter how self destructive, because we live in a free society, one where when people self destruct they can live without labor on the work of other people. We had a word for people who owned the work of other people, slavery. Not a free society, as such, no one’s degenerate behavior is done in the practice of freedom and liberty.

Yeah, it is the leftists argument, and you know what, I do not care. If we will not be rid of the welfare state, then I will make those on it and those who refuse to work against it as miserable as possible with my voice and vote.

You will use your voice and vote to increase the load on my back, I do not find you to be a valuable ally, “conservative” or not.

astonerii on March 26, 2013 at 4:12 PM

However, I am not opposed to limiting soda purchases with SNAP/EBT. I could be persuaded to either an outright ban, or to restrict soda purchases to store brands.

Jeddite on March 26, 2013 at 3:16 PM

They should restrict it to items that can be bought on WIC. The program already in place, so just eliminate SNAP, expand WIC and keep all the restrictions.

cptacek on March 26, 2013 at 4:26 PM

By the way, kim roy, I have one final question. What do you think of this quote?

I do think there are certain times we should infringe on your freedom

Sounds to me like you’re fine and dandy with it…as long as those infringements are law. How I wish our Founding Fathers had the fortitude you display, always bowing to government authority.

MadisonConservative on March 26, 2013 at 12:24 AM

I never said that and I’m not interested in wasting my time burning down your strawmen and projections on what I am saying.

Have a nice day.

kim roy on March 26, 2013 at 5:09 PM

astonerii on March 26, 2013 at 1:17 PM

Why thank you for your concern nanny.

galenrox on March 26, 2013 at 5:20 PM

kim roy on March 26, 2013 at 5:09 PM

I never claimed you said it. It’s on the goddamned front page in the post right above this one, and you know it.

I asked you what you thought of it. You won’t address it because you agree with it, you contemptible coward. Too much of a weasel to own your authoritarian garbage when it’s coming from some tyrant’s mouth, eh?

MadisonConservative on March 26, 2013 at 5:20 PM

kim roy on March 26, 2013 at 5:09 PM

I never claimed you said it. It’s on the goddamned front page in the post right above this one, and you know it.

I asked you what you thought of it. You won’t address it because you agree with it, you contemptible coward. Too much of a weasel to own your authoritarian garbage when it’s coming from some tyrant’s mouth, eh?

MadisonConservative on March 26, 2013 at 5:20 PM

So now I’m required to opine on quotes on your demand or else you’ll insult me?

What a bozo you are. My words are quite clear. You have built strawmen, actually changed my words and projected your issues upon them. I refuse to waste any further time on that because you don’t like the content of what I *HAVE* said.

You refuse to address my words as is. That’s fine, but I’m hopping off your useless and futile hamster wheel now.

kim roy on March 26, 2013 at 5:37 PM

kim roy on March 26, 2013 at 5:37 PM

And you still refuse to address Bloomberg’s quote. Coward.

MadisonConservative on March 26, 2013 at 5:39 PM

And you still refuse to address Bloomberg’s quote. Coward.

MadisonConservative on March 26, 2013 at 5:39 PM

Not at all. Just not going to give you what you want, clown.

:)

kim roy on March 26, 2013 at 5:41 PM

Why thank you for your concern nanny.

galenrox on March 26, 2013 at 5:20 PM

No problem plantation owner!

astonerii on March 26, 2013 at 6:11 PM

astonerii on March 26, 2013 at 6:11 PM

Again, 60 hours a week.

galenrox on March 26, 2013 at 6:13 PM

And you still refuse to address Bloomberg’s quote. Coward.

MadisonConservative on March 26, 2013 at 5:39 PM

Mike Bloomberg: “I do think there are certain times we should infringe on your freedom”

I agree with the words, but not his use of it. Your freedoms are infringed daily. You have the freedom to drive how ever fast your car can go. We restrict your use of that freedom and fine or even imprison you if you chose to not follow that advice.
You have the freedom to punch someone in the face. We restrict that as well, primarily with jail time.
You have the freedom to cross the road anywhere you want. Again, restricted.
You have the freedom to build an aircraft carrier. Yet another time it is restricted.

When the practice of an activity imposes harm on others, the others have the power to stand up together and restrict your activity by electing government that will do so. There are limitations on this written into the constitution. Speech, religion, Drug consumption, guns…

astonerii on March 26, 2013 at 6:25 PM

Again, 60 hours a week.

galenrox on March 26, 2013 at 6:13 PM

Hey, what ever floats your boat, do it man. I still support the drugs remaining illegal and higher and more strict enforcement with more incarceration.

astonerii on March 26, 2013 at 6:27 PM

astonerii on March 26, 2013 at 6:25 PM

FWIW, I have not accused you of being an authoritarian. Statist, yes. However, you do not seem to place federal law as the highest authority, which puts you quite a ways above Bloomberg’s cowardly little brother.

MadisonConservative on March 26, 2013 at 6:29 PM

FWIW, I have not accused you of being an authoritarian. Statist, yes. However, you do not seem to place federal law as the highest authority, which puts you quite a ways above Bloomberg’s cowardly little brother.

MadisonConservative on March 26, 2013 at 6:29 PM

Thanks appreciate that statement. Not that I think I am his little brother. But good words in these debates are appreciated.

We agree on the ends, just disagree on the path there. I think you put too much emphasis on something that can be done later. We already have hit the 50/50 mark of producers/entitled. It would be better to work on lowering the number of entitled.

astonerii on March 26, 2013 at 6:35 PM

I vaped some very good pot last weekend and went to see a performance of Beethoven’s 5th. It’s a travesty I’m not in jail for it.

mazer9 on March 26, 2013 at 6:40 PM

astonerii on March 26, 2013 at 6:35 PM

Unfortunately, the only way to lower the number of entitled is to export them. Who would vote against an easy life? Hell, a number of days at my job have made two years of unemployment checks seem like a sweet deal. I’ve heard from more and more conservatives that they’re going to start using the system just to get some of their money back, and I really can’t blame them.

The reasons I never took money from the gov’t, even though I’ve paid more than my share by now, was because of moral principles. Few have those, or stand up for them anymore. Makes me feel like a schmuck trying to be an upstanding citizen when everyone else is laughing from their sofas. What’s the point?

MadisonConservative on March 26, 2013 at 6:45 PM

I vaped some very good pot last weekend and went to see a performance of Beethoven’s 5th. It’s a travesty I’m not in jail for it.

mazer9 on March 26, 2013 at 6:40 PM

I agree with your self hatred tirade, you should be. No, I do not care about how it will effect your life, you knew it going in.

astonerii on March 26, 2013 at 6:46 PM

astonerii on March 26, 2013 at 6:46 PM

Name a single person whose rights were violated by what he did.

MadisonConservative on March 26, 2013 at 6:50 PM

The reasons I never took money from the gov’t, even though I’ve paid more than my share by now, was because of moral principles. Few have those, or stand up for them anymore. Makes me feel like a schmuck trying to be an upstanding citizen when everyone else is laughing from their sofas. What’s the point?

MadisonConservative on March 26, 2013 at 6:45 PM

I feel the same way. Felt the same way. Feel like a rug some days. This is why I argue against legal drugs. The virtuous are under a heavy burden these days. 25% or more of their labor stolen to provide for people who refuse to work. At some point, the burden pushes the people to no longer wish to be or even BE virtuous any more. The freebie life looks more and more appealing to them and some fall.

One aspect of why many have not yet jumped ship yet is that the 40% of our government paid for through borrowing has not hit them as of yet. When it does, 2007 onward will look like fond memories in comparison.

astonerii on March 26, 2013 at 6:52 PM

Name a single person whose rights were violated by what he did.

MadisonConservative on March 26, 2013 at 6:50 PM

If he drove, anyone in his path had their right to a safe travel route on the road infringed.

Then again, jay walkers do not infringe on anyone, until the higher risk activity the partake in goes bad.

I am sure he lives in a freedom loving state like Colorado.

astonerii on March 26, 2013 at 6:54 PM

astonerii on March 26, 2013 at 6:52 PM

That’s the other reason it’s not worth joining the “funemployed” yet. Sooner or later, you run out of other people’s(our) money, said Mme. Thatcher.

MadisonConservative on March 26, 2013 at 6:55 PM

Comment pages: 1 2 3 4