USA - Here's why republicans should be pro legalization....

[methMADMAN]

I am a liberal, I am also a stong pro legalization proponent, and I am on another bulletin board, (it's not a drugs board), called Off Topic Central, arguing with a bunch of republicans about why I feel drugs should be legal. It suddenly dawned on me that legalization of drugs is the solution to a lot of what republicans are so upset with about this nation. In fact the more I think on it the whole idea of legalization has more of a conservative feel than a liberal one. Unfortunately these republicans seem to be more of the opinion that everyone who ever even smoked pot is a criminal and we should lock them up and throw away the key. This is what I posted on the other board. (The thread title is, Another war we're losing.... for those who may be interested in the whole thread.)

Originally Posted by markjs

I was thinking, what would make a republican see the sense in the legalization of drugs? To do this I had to attempt lower myself to that level. It was difficult and I am sure I wasn't fully able to sink to that insipid depth of simplistic and feebleminded thinking, [sarcastic joke]especially without some drugs to knock off a lot of those darn pesky IQ points[/sarcastic joke], but I did suddenly have a flash of inspiration!

Bearing in mind that the legalization of drugs would mean decriminaliztion of a lot (not all) of the crime surrounding the drug trade, and the fact that legalization, would allow for taxation of the drugs themselves, sufficient to more than fund education and treatment, it occured to me!

[attempt at thinking like a republican] If drugs were legal, we could have a tax cut well in excess of $33,000,000,000! That's 33 BILLION guys! And what's more is we could shrink the government by a considerable amount! Hell this is one more front where we can keep the government out of our personal business! The idea is reveloutionary!!! [/attempt at thinking like a republican]

So my conclusion is that republicans, either mostly don't think, or have a different kind of logic than normal thinking people do, or being the more highly evolved liberal type I simply am not able to sink to their level. Knowing how republicans incessantly whine about having to pay for the services their government provides, the government's meddling in our lives, and the government being oversized and over-regulated, I should think an idea like this would have been incorporated into their campaign platform years ago.

Naw, leave it to a liberal to devise a strategy that accomplishes all your goals to a great extent and then rail against the idea because it didn't come from your camp....Typical republicanism....

I thought some of you might get a kick out of this so I decided to post it. Although, I am ready for debate as well, in any case, enjoy!

[FuBai]

I approach legalisation from the conservative angle, in a simmilar way to that which you have indicated. Whilst there are many high vaunted liberal ideals, the most convincing arguments were not "freedom of choice" etc, it was the ability to kill criminality and tax like hell. The drug market is worth 500billion +, lets tax it. People want to kill themselves by ingesting anything, that's fine so long as I can put a big enough tax on it. True, old school conservatism beleives that opium etc should never have been banned. We look at prohibition as an 80 year failed social experiment.

In Britian you get people who say "how selfish is it that people can damage themselves and then expect the state to pay for it?" I always say tobacco related diseases cost the NHS 1.5 billion pounds a year...guess how much taxation is directly garnered from it? 9 billion. That's not including the creation of gainful employment, the supporting of a long standing british manufacturing industry etc. From a conservative angle drug legalisation should be go go go.

[Nature Boy]

It would be extremely difficult for any major republican to step through the firing line by announcing they're in favour of legalisation. It's estimated that 45% of the American population still believes the world is only 10,000 years old. Try explaining legalisation to one of them. The middle American whose worst nightmare is little Timmy popping an ecstasy pill. Truth is, a country with such a huge population is always going to struggle to introduce seemingly radical new policies within a generation. Why do you think the Soviets had purges and communism? There's no easy answer when it comes to dealing with millions upon millions of extremely undereducated, narrow-minded people.

PS: Before I need to put on a flame-proof suit, in no way am I calling all Americans stupid. I'm just saying many Americans are. Generally this tends to happen in all mega-nations with massively spiralling population levels.

[FuBai]

Originally Posted by Nature Boy

It would be extremely difficult for any major republican to step through the firing line by announcing they're in favour of legalisation. It's estimated that 45% of the American population still believes the world is only 10,000 years old. Try explaining legalisation to one of them. The middle American whose worst nightmare is little Timmy popping an ecstasy pill. Truth is, a country with such a huge population is always going to struggle to introduce seemingly radical new policies within a generation. Why do you think the Soviets had purges and communism? There's no easy answer when it comes to dealing with millions upon millions of extremely undereducated, narrow-minded people.

PS: Before I need to put on a flame-proof suit, in no way am I calling all Americans stupid. I'm just saying many Americans are. Generally this tends to happen in all mega-nations with massively spiralling population levels.

Republican Presidential Candidate Ron Paul favours the legalisation (or at least state control rather than federal) of drugs.

Originally Posted by Republican Liberty Caucus

War on Drugs has abused Bill of Rights

Paul adopted the Republican Liberty Caucus Position Statement:

• As adopted by the General Membership of the Republican Liberty Caucus at its Biannual Meeting held December 8, 2000.
• WHEREAS libertarian Republicans believe in limited government, individual freedom and personal responsibility;
• WHEREAS we believe that government has no money nor power not derived from the consent of the people;
• WHEREAS we believe that people have the right to keep the fruits of their labor; and
• WHEREAS we believe in upholding the US Constitution as the supreme law of the land;

1. BE IT RESOLVED that the Republican Liberty Caucus endorses the following [among its] principles:
2. While recognizing the harm that drug abuse causes society, we also recognize that government drug policy has been ineffective and has led to frightening abuses of the Bill of Rights which could affect the personal freedom of any American. We, therefore, support alternatives to the War on Drugs.
3. Per the tenth amendment to the US Constitution, matters such as drugs should be handled at the state or personal level.
4. All laws which give license to violate the Bill of Rights should be repealed.

Taken from "On The Issues" Website (http://www.ontheissues.org/2008/Ron_Paul_Drugs.htm)

Actualy, now I've seen his voting record, if I was American he would probably get my vote.

[Nature Boy]

Originally Posted by FuBai

Republican Presidential Candidate Ron Paul favours the legalisation (or at least state control rather than federal) of drugs.

Yes, I've heard of Ron Paul but does he even stand a sniff of a chance of getting anywhere? Flat answer, no.

[lulz]

Originally Posted by Nature Boy

Yes, I've heard of Ron Paul but does he even stand a sniff of a chance of getting anywhere? Flat answer, no.

• He has more cash on hand than McCain (who used to be one of the front runners)
• His anti-gun control policy appeals to many traditional republicans
• His pro-life policy appeals to the avengelicals
• He's the only Republican candidate who supports pulling out of Iraq as soon as possible, which appeals to damn near the whole country
• National polls don't accurately reflect his popularity, since one of the largest demographics are young adults, many of whom only have cellphones and are therefore not questioned in polls
• He appeals to both sides of the Democratic/Conservative division

In 1975 Carter was polling at just 1% but he went on to win the election.

http://www.ronpaulonline.com/content/view/116/197/

Unfortunately, I agree with you that he doesn't stand a chance of winning. He should win, he's the only candidate I can think of who could turn the country around and get it back to the principles it was founded on.

Unfortunately, mainstream media are the kingmakers of the presidential process. If the mainstream media gave him more airtime, more mainstream exposure, his support would skyrocket. But the media have neglected him, and misrepresented him. I figure this is either because:

a) They really think that he's a waste of airtime.

b) All mainstream media outlets are owned by a handful of megacorporations, and a Ron Paul presidency would not be in their best interests.

We'll see what happens in the primaries. I've got my fingers crossed for him. And I've never been particularly supportive of a politician...

[Broshious]

I think for any thinking person Ron Paul is the only way to go. The problem is that the media, if they do give him coverage, will try and paint him as a nut.

[methMADMAN]

Originally Posted by Nature Boy

It would be extremely difficult for any major republican to step through the firing line by announcing they're in favour of legalisation. It's estimated that 45% of the American population still believes the world is only 10,000 years old. Try explaining legalisation to one of them. The middle American whose worst nightmare is little Timmy popping an ecstasy pill. Truth is, a country with such a huge population is always going to struggle to introduce seemingly radical new policies within a generation. Why do you think the Soviets had purges and communism? There's no easy answer when it comes to dealing with millions upon millions of extremely undereducated, narrow-minded people.

PS: Before I need to put on a flame-proof suit, in no way am I calling all Americans stupid. I'm just saying many Americans are. Generally this tends to happen in all mega-nations with massively spiralling population levels.

People were at one time ready to burn Copernicus, and Galileo at the stake. Didn't make either of them any less right.

[righteously indignant rant]I am an American, but I will go so far as to say, I believe that at least, a full 30% of the population is comprised of moronic, "sheeple", bereft of the capability of independent thought, with nothing more than the ability to regurgitate, over and over, the erroneous, insipid, and vapid ideas, that someone else duped them into blindly following.

I mean come on, over 50% of the high school graduates in this country, cannot even pass a simple G.E.D. test. The G.E.D., for those who don't know and don't want to follow that handy dandy little linky I provided, is the test that is supposed to be the equivalent of a high school diploma, that is given to dropouts, so they can seek employment and say that they have acheived a certain measuable level of learning. Bearing this in mind, you'd think that a G.E.D. would be held in at least as high of regard as a diploma, if not higher, but to add to the backwards ass thinking in this country, it's considered inferior.

I could go on and on ad nauseum, about the shortcomings of American society, but I won't. Suffice to say the nation is founded on some wonderful ideals, and there is much that is great and wonderful about this country, but it certainly does consistantly fail to even reach for the ideals it was founded on in many cases IMHO.[/righteously indignant rant]

*mM quickly dons his own flameproof suit*

[bcubed]

Well, you gotta remember that the right, at present, is the butt buddy of the Christian right, and, as such, will whore out principles readily in order to appease this faction.

Case in point: one fundamental tenet of conservatives is less overall government, and what government there is should be at the state or local level as much as possible. But, when "medical MJ" initiatives started being passed by states, what did the conservatives do? Pass a federal law effectively overruling the state laws! Then they aggressively prosecuted citizens operating within the laws of their state.

A bill to end federal enforcement of MJ laws that run contrary to state laws was run through the House of Representatives; the Republicans were against it in a fairly unanimous fashion.

SWIM prefers ideology over political convenience; the same distrust of the fed gov't that makes him anti-gun control also makes him anti-WOD.

[methMADMAN]

Originally Posted by bcubed

Autofelatio - It's only gay if you swallow.

That shit always gives me a chuckle!

[Nature Boy]

I think Giuliani might get the nod.

[lulz]

Originally Posted by Nature Boy

I think Giuliani might get the nod.

He only has one single issue that he stands strong on - the pure chance that he was mayor of New York during 9/11.

The Daily Show had a great bit with a clip of Giuliani saying "If there's one single issue this election is about, it's terrorism". John Stewart replied something along the lines of "But otherwise you're fucked!"

Giuliani has milked 9/11 so much that it's actually offensive. I read an article recently where he was having a questions and answers session, and someone asked him a question about HIV/AIDS, something about what kind of policy he would have towards it. Giuliani's actually managed to twist his response into a reference to 9/11, something about the fact that HIV people and those who didn't die on 9/11 are survivors.

Besides that fact, there's no way he'll get the support of the conservative base. He's pro-abortion, pro-gay rights, he's divorced his wife a couple of times (one of whom was a cousin), etc. I'd put money on him running out of steam sooner or later like McCain has already.

Plus he's a dick.

[Bajeda]

Originally Posted by Nature Boy

I think Giuliani might get the nod.

Not a chance in hell. And if Satan intervenes and that actually happens, an assassination or coup d'etat would be in order.


I like Kucinich the most out of all the candidates currently. His views match my own fairly well, he has maintained his integrity throughout his career, and he actually has a brain! I like some of Ron Paul's ideas, but he is ideologically rigid and while I think the Constitution is great, exact literal interpretations of anything haven't worked well in the past. Some of the things he is pushing for are great, but looking at his standpoint overall I don't know if I would want him in office other than if just to change the status quo. Some things he wouldn't be able to change as president, but in some areas I could see damage being done. The jury is still out on him, and while I like his candor, I have a fair number of reservations. As for the mainstream candidates, Barack is more appealing to me. That basically means I dislike him the least though, so it doesn't mean much.

[lulz]

Originally Posted by Bajeda

And if Satan intervenes and that actually happens, an assassination or coup d'etat would be in order.

You must be an idealist, mate.

Abraham Lincoln, Martin Luther King Jr, John F Kennedy, Bobby Kennedy...

Obligatory Bill Hicks quote:

The world is like a ride at an amusement park. It goes up and down and round and round. It has thrills and chills and it's very brightly coloured and it's very loud and it's fun, for a while. Some people have been on the ride for a long time, and they begin to question: Is this real, or is this just a ride? And other people have remembered, and they come back to us, they say, "Hey – don't worry, don't be afraid, ever, because, this is just a ride ..." And we ... kill those people.

With regards to Kucinich, you may enjoy the following link if you haven't come across it already:

http://www.towncalleddobson.com/?p=820

P.S. I would so bone his wife

Edit:

Originally Posted by Bajeda

As for the mainstream candidates, Barack is more appealing to me.

Living in Ireland, I am exposed to much less media focus on the candidates than you would do in America. But did you see Barack on the Daily Show last week? (If it's allowed by the rules I can PM you links to download it, if not please ignore this). Before I saw that interview, Ron Paul and Kucinich were the only candidates I thought were really speaking their minds, rather than sound-bites (much as I admire Gravel's views, nobody is going to elect Grandpa Simpson to the White House). Since that interview though, he seems to be speaking from the heart. I'd now place him as a polar opposite to Hillary Clinton, who reminds me somewhat of the Terminator (with cleavage).

[Broshious]

Originally Posted by lulz

Living in Ireland, I am exposed to much less media focus on the candidates than you would do in America. But did you see Barack on the Daily Show last week? (If it's allowed by the rules I can PM you links to download it, if not please ignore this). Before I saw that interview, Ron Paul and Kucinich were the only candidates I thought were really speaking their minds, rather than sound-bites (much as I admire Gravel's views, nobody is going to elect Grandpa Simpson to the White House). Since that interview though, he seems to be speaking from the heart. I'd now place him as a polar opposite to Hillary Clinton, who reminds me somewhat of the Terminator (with cleavage).

The problem I have with Barack is that it is a politician's job to make you like them. In a short TV interview it is very easy to appear one way while being a completely different person. I will admit that he did look good, but I am far from convinced that he is anything but a politician.

[lulz]

Originally Posted by Broshious

The problem I have with Barack is that it is a politician's job to make you like them. In a short TV interview it is very easy to appear one way while being a completely different person. I will admit that he did look good, but I am far from convinced that he is anything but a politician.

I know what you're saying, and that's exactly the reason why I don't trust politicians in general.

But in real life, when you get into a conversation with someone, you can pretty quickly tell if they are speaking their mind spontaneously, or if they are "acting" a role to make you think they are someone you would trust and like.

Hillary Clinton is a perfect example of someone who seems utterly calculating in everything she says, at least from what I have seen of her speaking in debates and interviews. Unfortunately, her kind of calculated deception is likely to trick many voters into thinking she is sincere.

Barack, Paul, and Kucinich on the other hand, when they respond to a question I don't see any rational hesitation before answering. Obviously having gotten to where they are politically, they have a mental censor that stops them from saying things that could be ambiguously misconstrued to mudrake them. But what they actually say seems to be spontaneous, in align with whatever their individual values actually are.

This makes them very different from the front runners on both sides of the partisan divide. You get what I'm saying?