Why not?
James Delingpole ·
February 17, 2012 at 4:57pm
VANCOUVER, Wash. (AP) — Republican presidential candidate Ron Paul decried the “war on drugs” Thursday night, telling supporters in Washington state that people should be able to make their own decisions on such matters.
Voters in Washington are likely to decide this year whether to legalize the recreational use of marijuana
“If we are allowed to deal with our eternity and all that we believe in spiritually, and if we’re allowed to read any book that we want under freedom of speech, why is it we can’t put into our body whatever we want?” Paul told more than 1,000 people at a rally in Vancouver, a suburb of Portland, Ore.
Yep. Go on Ricochet friends. Tell me: why not???
- Comment (107)
- · Quote
- · UnfollowFollow (5)
Comments:
Feb '12
Re: Why not?
Xennady:Unless and until self-described libertarians come right out and acknowledge those issues and provide a solution I conclude that libertarians are simply silly people who like to smoke pot, and don't think beyond that.Or simply expect other people to keep picking up their tab, because the state will force people to do so. You don't think you're picking up the tab now for the war on pot? You deceive yourself. It's much more expensive to ban it.
May '10
Re: Why not?
James Delingpole
Yep. Go on Ricochet friends. Tell me: why not???
One other reason just came to mind - put enough opiates, stiumulants, depressants or hallucinogens in your system and you may decide Ron Paul's foreign policy ruminations seem reasonable (or that Ron Paul had no idea what was in the Ron Paul Newsletters). Yes, friends, the dangers are legion. Friends don't let friends vote high.
Edited on February 18, 2012 at 6:28pmSep '10
Re: Why not?
Matthew Gilley
James Delingpole
Yep. Go on Ricochet friends. Tell me: why not???
One other reason just came to mind - put enough opiates, stiumulants, depressants or hallucinogens in your system and you may decide Ron Paul's foreign policy ruminations seem reasonable (or that Ron Paul had no idea what was in the Ron Paul Newsletters). Yes, friends, the dangers are legion. Friends don't let friends vote high.
Yes, of course! People who want to reform antiquated and ineffective drug laws are all high! They are blasted on opiates and hallucenogens!
Dude, you gotta get out more, maybe a small dose of psylicybin would help you get over your ignorance on this issue.
I've taken my share, and I can still tell through the purple haze that Ron Paul is wacky on foriegn policy.
Sep '10
Re: Why not?
Ironically the fact they are illegal exacerbates problems for the drug user himself, victims of crime perpetrated by drug user and society. These things have to be weighed into the equation. If as I'm speculating (and we are allspeculating here) legalized drugs would not increase significantly the population of drug users, and it would reduce significantly societal costs such as petty crime by addicts, corruption of law enforcemnet and judiciary drug cartel power, cost of incarcerations prosecutions mis-applied law enforcement and so much more, then it would be a plus. · 5 hours ago
Edited 5 hours ago
Let's not deceive ourselves into think crime and the cost of marijuana would drop if its legal. Alcohol is a legal substance and its economic and social costs are high. Let's not exacerbate the problem by legalizing it.
Dec '10
Re: Why not?
Fake John Galt
Chris Deleon
Remember, even free speech rights are not completely absolute.
Well free speech rights should be completely absolute. Who do you think is qualified to limit them? You?
So you are saying I should be able to tell lies publicly about you with impunity? Because the laws against slander and libel are restrictions on the right of free speech.
May '10
Re: Why not?
Franco
Dude, you gotta get out more, maybe a small dose of psylicybin would help you get over your ignorance on this issue.
Thanks for your measured response, but I must decline. I prefer to live a law abiding life. To each his own, though, right?
May '11
Re: Why not?
I dunno what Grendel said, but I like his own defense of it. Without the freedom to bash the opposition over the head with the jewel-encrusted knob of a good walking stick, what freedom is there? Must we suffer insult and defamation merely because it is phrased in a university style?