Cleveland Buck;1013753 wrote:I didn't look for the post, I just remember you talking about him. And if drug legalization and isolationism are your big concerns, then you should just jump on the Ron Paul bandwagon.
Isolationism is slapping tariffs on imports, no trade, not working with any other government for anything. It is a sad state of affairs when people believe that you are an isolationist if you don't think we should be picking winners in foreign elections, propping up dictators that will follow orders, spreading millions of U.S. troops throughout the world on hundreds and hundreds of bases, and propping up the European welfare state by being their defense. That sounds like good sense to me, and it has nothing to do with isolationism.
And while Ron Paul may personally believe that making drugs illegal is a pointless act, he certainly wouldn't override state laws to make it legal. Federally decriminalizing drugs does not make them legal, and he knows better than anyone that the federal government has no right to tell states what to do about their drug laws.
These are the hills Dr. Paul must climb. I understand what you've written, but the message needs to get out to millions of voters. For many, isolationism is defined exactly as you wrote. Our greatest generation lived through an isolationist society and look what happened on 12-7-1941. This is what is remembered, not some wonkish dissertation about "propping up dictators" and "picking winners". If Dr. Paul could somehow describe how he would meld budget savings, remaining active (not passive) in world affairs, and NOT gut the military to a point where all China has to do is show up on our beaches in order to claim what they own, then he has a chance. To the multitudes, he is cast as an isolationist and he needs to meet that head-on, or else lose. If he has trouble telling it to me, then how can he convince tens of millions of voters?
As far as drug legalization, I believe most Americans would go along with legalizing Mary-Jane. It would also supplant tobacco as a cash-cow for Uncle Sam and the states. Where Libertarians get sideways with Americans is their, "if it doesn't bother me, why is it a crime what someone else does with their lives" mantra regarding more high-powered drugs. How many thefts/break-ins/murders are directly tied to junkies wanting their fix or to feed someone else's addiction? Yeah...it doesn't bother anyone until it comes crashing through their front window in the form of a 9 millimeter sphere. And lest we not forget, the current law-of-the-land is that everyone is responsible for carrying their own healthcare (or have liberties removed), so having junkies get wasted and repaired on the government dime with no punishment is a drain on everyone. Which is in direct violation of the Libertarian drug creed. Even if ObamaKare is removed, then all Americans would still foot the bill for junkies' largesse with their needles and spoons.
What is the answer? To me, incarceration doesn't seem to be it. Neither does letting people destroy their lives, especially since other's (children, parents, siblings, spouses) lives depend on the sobriety of their loved ones. There has to be an answer somewhere in-between. Maybe it's a combination of rehab, house-arrest, drug testing, and/or fines. I will agree with IWP that the war on drugs is a loser, but we just can't do the Corso and say, F it, we won't even try. I don't want to go down in history labeled as the nation of hopped up drug addicts or "Land of the free, home of the Dopes."
