Ron Paul's Farewell Address

[OldCannon]

Worth reading, even if you don't like him.

http://www.campaignforliberty.org/natio ... l-address/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[Heartland Patriot]

I read the bulk of the address, and skimmed the rest of it. While I agree with quite a few things Ron Paul says, in theory, I have doubts about the practical application of many of them. Legalizing drugs, for instance. Some drugs make the users very violent as well known. If the drugs were legal, then someone addicted to them would then be thought of as being "sick". And when they inevitably violently assault others and/or rob others for the money to support their habits, they would then be put into a "protected class". And if you had to shoot one to stop them from seriously bodily harming or killing you, they would put YOU "under the jail" for hurting one of the now-precious ones. I'm not saying I haven't used drugs...a great many of us do: caffeine, nicotine, alcohol...but I have NOT used the sort of substances that would make me attack others to get money to support my "habit". And I really don't have a lot of sympathy for those that do. IF they legalized drugs, they'd also have to make it VERY CLEAR in the law that if someone attacks you while high on some substance, and you injure or kill that other person in self-defense, that you are nearly iron-clad justified and the burden would solidly be on them to prove otherwise...not a "you are guilty until you convince us you are innocent" system.

Additionally, while I agree that we have over-extended ourselves in the world in a military sense considering our reduced numbers of folks who ACTUALLY WEAR UNIFORMS and the aging equipment they are using, I do NOT agree that "playing nice" with a very large number of groups out there will make them like us any more than they do now. There are those who hate us for the liberties we do still have, and for the wealth we still have, and will NEVER stop attacking us or our interests. There might be a different military solution to stopping these groups, but it would still be a MILITARY solution.

Anyway, these are two places I disagree, or at least don't see eye-to-eye, with Ron Paul. Some of his ideas I would LOVE to see come to fruition, such as AUDITING THE FED. An eye toward greater liberty is a great thing indeed, but it MUST be tempered by reality.

[RoyGBiv]

Thanks for sharing that...

To achieve liberty and peace, two powerful human emotions have to be overcome. Number one is “envy” which leads to hate and class warfare. Number two is “intolerance” which leads to bigoted and judgmental policies. These emotions must be replaced with a much better understanding of love, compassion, tolerance and free market economics. Freedom, when understood, brings people together. When tried, freedom is popular.

The problem we have faced over the years has been that economic interventionists are swayed by envy, whereas social interventionists are swayed by intolerance of habits and lifestyles. The misunderstanding that tolerance is an endorsement of certain activities, motivates many to legislate moral standards which should only be set by individuals making their own choices. Both sides use force to deal with these misplaced emotions. Both are authoritarians. Neither endorses voluntarism. Both views ought to be rejected.

I have come to one firm conviction after these many years of trying to figure out “the plain truth of things.” The best chance for achieving peace and prosperity, for the maximum number of people world-wide, is to pursue the cause of LIBERTY.

[lbuehler325]

Heartland Patriot, I don't use drugs. Never have. Don't have a desire to do so. I don't smoke. Never have. Don't have a desire to do so. I have drank, maybe, three beers in the past two years. Never really had a desire to do so. But I think Ron Paul is on to something about the futility of the so called war on drugs. First, with respect to the most talked about illicit drug, Marijuana; what exactly makes it so dangerous? Most of the danger in Marijuana seems to be in the illegal trade/smuggling/dealing of it, not the use. I'd argue that alcohol is much more dangerous, in that those who over-consume, are more prone to violence than the deadbeat with a joint. Look at how drug crimes are so disproportionately prosecuted by socioeconomic class (middle class/upper class get probation, and the poor black and Hispanic kids get jail. All over a victimless crime. Now, back to alcohol. Given it is more 'dangerous,' maybe a prohibition is in order for alcohol... except it was tried, and failed. Drug crimes should be treated the same as alcohol crimes; being under the influence should magnify the consequences of the actual criminal act, not be the criminal act.

[The Annoyed Man]

First, with respect to the most talked about illicit drug, Marijuana; what exactly makes it so dangerous? Most of the danger in Marijuana seems to be in the illegal trade/smuggling/dealing of it, not the use. I'd argue that alcohol is much more dangerous, in that those who over-consume, are more prone to violence than the deadbeat with a joint.

lbuehler325, allow me to offer a few comments to this from a very personal perspective if you will.......

1. Marijuana is probably most dangerous because it is a gateway drug leading to drugs that ARE much more dangerous. I deliberately used the word "dangerous" because of its insidiousness. Before anybody gets their feathers ruffled, I fully realize that marijuana does not always lead to the use of more dangerous drugs. There are plenty of pot smokers who never try anything else. However, it is generally true that all people who are addicted to more dangerous drugs indeed started by experimenting with marijuana. Therefore, on that basis alone, it creates a societal burden that the rest of us have to live with. Here's an analogy to illustrate my point: LOTS of kids play with matches because it is fun to make fire and to watch leaves and twigs burn, and by the grace of God (or whatever you believe in) no houses get burned down. But it is equally true that, in lots of instances, kids playing with matches leads to houses being burned down. One can argue that maybe playing with matches ought to be illegal. Well, at some level, it actually is illegal, which is why we have a category of crimes called "arson." From a personal perspective for me, smoking pot as a teenager back in the 1960s really was a gateway drug—eventually leading to trying much stronger drugs and hallucinogens and an eventual cocaine problem. God is good and kind, and he spared me from ever committing a crime while using these drugs, other than the crimes of their use; but I knew then MANY people who DID commit crimes to pay for their habits. I would argue that this gives society a stake in the game, and a legitimate argument for illegalizing the unprescribed use of recreational drugs.
2. Getting sober was life-changing for me, and it altered the arc of my personal prosperity. Not that I am a rich man now, but getting sober made me into a productive citizen. Waaaaaaayyyyy too many people spend all day getting stoned, and they aren't good for much else. They may not rob liquor stores or steal old ladies' purses to pay for their habits, but neither are they productive citizens. There may exist the occasional millionaire who is still able acquire wealth even while hamstringing himself with drugs, but only a complete idiot would argue that this is the rule rather than the exception. Faaaaaar more people actually hamstring themselves by doing so, and it burdens the rest of us. One can argue the libertarian view that if they want to jack up their lives, they should be free to do so....and on some level, that actually is true. BUT, the real world that we actually live in is not a libertarian utopia. (Furthermore, if you want to argue for the creation of a libertarian utopia, starting with arguing for the legalization of drugs is not the way to gain the sympathies of society's most productive citizens.) A stoner who lays around all day, or even one who has a job but does not perform it beyond a minimum standard to remain employed, becomes a net drag on society. There is a word for people who don't believe that this drag on society exists: "Denial." (If you're in denial, seek a 12 step recovery program and get yourself straitened out.) In a material sense, the rest of us pay for their food stamps, their unemployment insurance, their public healthcare needs, the car accidents they cause, the injuries they inflict on others, the industrial accidents which are their fault, the elevated workers compensation insurance rates which are their fault, etc., etc., etc. Again, I would argue that this gives the rest of society a stake in the game, since the cost for these things comes out of society's pockets, and it becomes a legitimate argument against the legalization of unprescribed recreational drug use. (And by the way, I worked in healthcare long enough to know that the actual "medicinal" uses of marijuana are so limited that 99.9% of the claims for its medicinal use by perfectly healthy and able bodied people are pure horse manure.)
3. There is only one way to make the legalization of recreational drugs—meaning primarily marijuana—palatable and just to the rest of society, and that is to first create the libertarian utopia in which society A) completely rejects the notion of any kind of entitlements so that the rest of us don't have to pay for the fallout from someone else's drug use; and B) the individual citizen then becomes empowered legally to administer whatever retribution he or she feels is necessary to recoup the losses that the other person's drug use has cost them. To use the "playing with matches" analogy: If your kid is playing with matches and burns down my house, you have to give me your house and possessions until my material/financial status has been restored to pre-fire levels. If that means that you and your family starve and freeze to death, well, that is the cost of allowing your kids to play with matches. If you can't deliver on that, then the law allows me to take a gun and foce you and yours out of the home and confiscate your possessions until that status ante is achieved. Sounds delightful, doesn't it? This is why the libertarian utopia can never be achieved. In the real world, people simply wouldn't stand for it.
4. Finally, it is a myth that we can, as a society, legalize a drug and then collect the revenues....thereby sparing society the cost of enforcement. There is a show on TV right now about moonshiners. All that will happen is that a large part of the former interdiction budget will be spent on enforcing the revenue collection. How does a libertarian explain the notion that we can tax the distribution and sale of marijuana and reduce the law enforcement budgetary burdens in the face of moonshiners? People will still grow pot illegally, and try to distribute it illegally, cutting the gubmint out of its "pound of flesh." All that will happen is that law enforcement interdiction efforts will be converted to law enforcement revenuer efforts, and the costs to taxpayers will still be there. So the whole idea that "if we legalize it, we can tax it" is just plain hogwash. The people who are growing/distributing/selling marijuana right now are criminals. They don't care about the law! What makes anyone think they'll care about the law when enforcement efforts convert from interdiction to revenue collection?

I'd like to know exactly what is so wrong with life that some people find anesthesia to be necessary to deal with it..........which by the way is a misnomer if there ever was one. Anesthetizing one's self is, in fact, not a method of dealing with life; it is a refusal to deal with life. So long as society has to carry the burden of that refusal, then society has a stake in the game, and it ought to have the authority to do whatever is in its power to do to discourage the growth, distribution, sale, AND use of marijuana.

Maybe not the popular point of view, but it is the realist point of view.

[Abraham]

Cheap fast food can be seen as a gateway to becoming obese. Examples of all sorts exist that could be seen as a gateway for this or that that negatively impacts humanity.

Prohibition isn't going to stop poor choices. Once overturned the Volstead Act (more commonly known as the alcohol prohibition act of 1920) a monstrous amount and types of crime disappeared.

Free up law enforcement and clogged up prisons. Decriminalize drug use. In time, some of the numbers of those truly self destructive drug using individuals will ultimately stop being a problem as nature will take it's toll..the remaining can go into re-hab if they so choose.

Will decriminalizing drug use stop all drug user related/crime problems for society?

No - but they'll be significantly lessened as happened when alcohol prohibition stopped being the law of the land.

[The Annoyed Man]

Cheap fast food can be seen as a gateway to becoming obese. Examples of all sorts exist that could be seen as a gateway for this or that that negatively impacts humanity.

Prohibition isn't going to stop poor choices. Once overturned the Volstead Act (more commonly known as the alcohol prohibition act of 1920) a monstrous amount and types of crime disappeared.

Free up law enforcement and clogged up prisons. Decriminalize drug use. In time, some of the numbers of those truly self destructive drug using individuals will ultimately stop being a problem as nature will take it's toll..the remaining can go into re-hab if they so choose.

Will decriminalizing drug use stop all drug user related/crime problems for society?

No - but they'll be significantly lessened as happened when alcohol prohibition stopped being the law of the land.

And that's the purist argument, which whether or not I agree with it, is at least consistent. I think that where the wheels fall off the legalization bus is at the point where proponents try to justify it as a revenue generator........because trying to control and regulate alcohol consumption isn't working out any better either from that standpoint. We still have alcohol-related crime....either at the production/taxation end, or at the criminal misuse end. At least the law creates some accountability.

[Abraham]

Intoxicants will always be with us.

Is there a 'perfect' solution to lessening their negative impact? No.

Is the current approach towards curbing the drug problem i.e., massive police effort, prison sentences, etc. working, if not efficiently at least pretty well? I'll answer that question too: No!

Does anyone believe drug decriminalization will result in our streets/neighborhoods being much different than they already are? I don't think so.

When alcohol prohibition was the law of the land, did people stop drinking, going to speakeasies, smuggling, making bath tub gin and committing a lot of related crime? Again, no.

I think self destructive individuals will always be with us. So, let's recognize this and quit pretending we can reason with these folks. Can't be done. They're not going to stop. Nor will laws and policing have enough impact to significantly slow it down.

The police/courts/jails/prisons/ are used to a disproportionate percentage in their efforts to stop drug sales and use, but I'm afraid all that effort is akin to shoveling sand against the tide.

What a waste.

The majority on this board are probably conservative and rail against the liberal nanny state mind set - but when it comes to the self destructive drug taking folk we want to be nannies - again what a waste of time.

Should there be some liability regarding drug takers? Yes, of course. I look at those willing to take drugs with the same attitude regarding the law for alcohol drinkers. If you're high and driving you'll get a DUI and all the legal problems that go with it. Cause some sort of catastrophe at work because you're high on something, you're liable and so on.

[Heartland Patriot]

Obese folks don't violently assault others because they eat too many cheeseburgers, nor take their belongings, often accompanied with violence, to get another cheeseburger. Legalize it if you want...but all I am saying is, Lord forbid that I ever had to defend myself with deadly force against a drug abuser, I simply don't want to be seen as a terrible person/criminal and the drug abuser as the "victim".

[canvasbck]

I'm sorry, but the gateway argument is just not valid. TAM, I normally agree with you 100%, and I am genuinely proud of you for getting sober, but I disagree with you on this point. Yes, most users of "hard" drugs report marijuana use prior to the hard drug use, most of them also report use of alcohol and nicottine prior to starting hard drugs. People who are self destructive will follow a path of destruction regardless of laws passed to stop them.

[texasmusic]

If you can't deliver on that, then the law allows me to take a gun and foce you and yours out of the home and confiscate your possessions until that status ante is achieved. Sounds delightful, doesn't it? This is why the libertarian utopia can never be achieved. In the real world, people simply wouldn't stand for it.

In the libertarian "utopia" the legal sytsem is still used for cases where you are wronged by another person's actions. I'm just not sure where this conclusion came from.

Finally, it is a myth that we can, as a society, legalize a drug and then collect the revenues....thereby sparing society the cost of enforcement. There is a show on TV right now about moonshiners. All that will happen is that a large part of the former interdiction budget will be spent on enforcing the revenue collection.

Have you seen "Moonsiners"? I think the Discovery Channel film crew assigned to that show is larger in manpower and budget than the VABC division for moonshining. The whole show had to be staged because the problem is either nonexistent or too small and out of sight to even be a blip on the radar. They moved to the much more lucrative businesses of growing pot and cooking meth in the same woods they used to brew the mountain dew.


The sinkhole that is the War on Drugs, and the money it puts into the hands of criminals on the border, needs to be stopped. I know legalization will create some problems, and they can be addressed. But we can take a bite out of a huge problem that is taking lives of Texans with these policies and for that reason I don't think it can be overlooked.

That is all.

[Abraham]

Decriminalizing drugs offends a lot of people as there's a certain amount of sanctimony (read large...) involved.

Much like alcohol prohibition (and wow, didn't that work out beautifully...?) the unspoken attitude is one of contempt for the lowly drug user.

Drug users aren't going away because we're appalled by their disgusting choice of intoxicants, as we slurp down our wine, beer, spirits while chugging on tobacco...

What to do?

Longer prison sentences?

More police action? (whoops, sorry sir, we got the wrong address. Your broken down door and being traumatized with flash bang grenades and storm trooper tactics, well let's all forget that happened, o.k...? It's not our fault, it's these darn druggies...)

Heck, why not introduce a modern day version of Devil's Island?

Our current approach to the illegal drug trade and users is a dismal failure.

Pretending the current approach to illegal drug use is worthy is ludicrous.

Is decriminalizing the answer? Maybe not, but we've got to get innovative or the problem will simply worsen...

[Oldgringo]

I sometimes think that I'm the only person who cares what I think; but FWIW, I agree with Abraham on this subject. Morality and good manners can't be legislated.

I'm also an Old Testament "eye for an eye' type guy too. IOW, no more excuses for inexcusable behavior!

[WildBill]

I sometimes think that I'm the only person who cares what I think; but FWIW, I agree with Abraham on this subject. Morality and good manners can't be legislated.

I'm also an Old Testament "eye for an eye' type guy too. IOW, no more excuses for inexcusable behavior!

[The Annoyed Man]

The majority on this board are probably conservative and rail against the liberal nanny state mind set - but when it comes to the self destructive drug taking folk we want to be nannies - again what a waste of time.

Truly, it isn't about being a nanny for me. I am convinced, based on my years of working in an ER, that if marijuana (to pick one) were to become legal, that more people would drive high than are already driving high. Well, I use those roads too, and I don't want additional impaired drivers on them. It's NOT because I want the state to protect people from themselves, it's because I want the state to protect ME from THEM. If they want to jump out of airplanes without parachutes, that's fine with me. I think it is dumb, but I don't care because it doesn't affect me.