Rand Paul begins his move to the right

Discussion in 'Too Hot for Swamp Gas' started by channingcrowderhungry, Jun 19, 2013.

  1. tim85
    Online

    tim85 Premium Member

    Joined:
    Nov 3, 2009
    Messages:
    3,235
    Likes Received:
    241
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Location:
    Jacksonville, FL
    Ratings Received:
    +631 / 29 / -3
    Interesting point. I would bet most Christians under 30, maybe even 40, would be for or okay with the legalization of marijuana.
  2. dynogator
    Offline

    dynogator Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 9, 2007
    Messages:
    5,597
    Likes Received:
    44
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Ratings Received:
    +148 / 1 / -1
    I agree completely. Unless we're talking crackheads and meth monsters. They're a very low quality of people, certainly. The occasional pot smoker, however, is at least as "quality," as the pillars of society drinking their lunches.
  3. MichiGator2002
    Online

    MichiGator2002 VIP Member

    Joined:
    Apr 3, 2007
    Messages:
    14,875
    Likes Received:
    326
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Ratings Received:
    +896 / 41 / -9
    If you think those are valid comparisons, we will never meet on this issue. Forget the self-improvement angle. The government of a free society can still legitimately define contraband in the form of chemicals that cannot, by nature, be consumed responsibly. There is no right way to be a junkie that will satisfy any applicable duty of care against the risk of going bananas and beating people up or psychotic breaks. So "legalize drugs", as a categorical ideal, is not a requirement of liberty. We keep legal the drugs that we deem fit for responsible consumption and criminalize the ones we don't. It is a waste of time and intellectual credibility to act like a legitimate government can't do that.

    At best you can argue that the line has been poorly drawn in the case of marijuana or certain controlled pharmaceuticals. It will never be true for most street drugs, though. The rights of those being protected from the likely and predictable results of people using those *at all* outweigh their right to the self-destructive stupidity it takes to consume them.
  4. dynogator
    Offline

    dynogator Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 9, 2007
    Messages:
    5,597
    Likes Received:
    44
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Ratings Received:
    +148 / 1 / -1
    Alcohol has ruined way more lives than pot. Probably more than "street drugs." And yet its's legal. Strange.
  5. channingcrowderhungry
    Online

    channingcrowderhungry Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 3, 2007
    Messages:
    4,162
    Likes Received:
    97
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Ratings Received:
    +234 / 6 / -0
    That was going to my exact response. Thanks.
  6. fastsix
    Offline

    fastsix Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 11, 2007
    Messages:
    5,361
    Likes Received:
    126
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Location:
    Seattle
    Ratings Received:
    +428 / 23 / -9
    Exactly, look at the Seattle Metro area. Marijuana is legal here and there are no responsible, functional adults to be found. Not at Microsoft, not at Amazon, not at Starbucks, not at Costco, not at Boeing, not anywhere. Bunch of hippie stoners who can't get anything accomplished!
  7. MichiGator2002
    Online

    MichiGator2002 VIP Member

    Joined:
    Apr 3, 2007
    Messages:
    14,875
    Likes Received:
    326
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Ratings Received:
    +896 / 41 / -9
    Which, as arguments go, is meant to convince anyone of what? It amounts to nothing more than dickering over where the line ought to be drawn, not if it can. Would you prefer if we legalize all the various forms of chemical idiocy, but maybe treat them under the law the way we treat, say, owning wild animals? How about strict liability in tort and in criminal law for crimes committed while using the formerly controlled substances? Point being, you can't be serious about rights but also not think that the government can't use law to protect the rights that may be infringed by the consequences of someone else's activity. Would you prefer that system?
  8. MichiGator2002
    Online

    MichiGator2002 VIP Member

    Joined:
    Apr 3, 2007
    Messages:
    14,875
    Likes Received:
    326
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Ratings Received:
    +896 / 41 / -9
    Is there anything more insipid possible, than this argument? Do you have any evidence whatsoever, even a shred, even a dribble of fact, that suggests that habitual use of any controlled substance would be a profile trait of the employees of those companies, up or down the ladder? I suspect not. In fact, I would guess it more likely that employment with the major companies -- let alone at the highest levels -- is strongly contraindicated with habitual drug use. Success is what people get stepping over and around the folk that make such use a regular feature of their lives.
  9. channingcrowderhungry
    Online

    channingcrowderhungry Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 3, 2007
    Messages:
    4,162
    Likes Received:
    97
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Ratings Received:
    +234 / 6 / -0
    And I could argue the opposite and ask for the same evidence, which you could also not possibly generate. I don't smoke anymore but know plenty of successful business owners that do. Richard Branson smokes on the regular and I don't see many people stepping over and around him on their way to the top.

    Can marijuana negatively effect someone's life? Sure. So can a lot of things that are both legal and illegal.
  10. GatorBen
    Online

    GatorBen Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 9, 2007
    Messages:
    5,467
    Likes Received:
    269
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Ratings Received:
    +808 / 14 / -7
    It's been a fairly long running joke that the tech companies don't drug test because they would lose their best employees by doing so. I don't know the truth of that reason, but Microsoft does not have an employee drug testing plan.

    I think you'll also find that both books about and interviews with Bill Gates strongly suggest that he at least used to be a fairly heavy smoker and he confirmed in a Playboy interview in the 90s that he did LSD at Harvard.
  11. dynogator
    Offline

    dynogator Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 9, 2007
    Messages:
    5,597
    Likes Received:
    44
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Ratings Received:
    +148 / 1 / -1
    That the criminalization of marijuana is rooted in cultural bias, and is a rich breeding ground for hypocrisy, especially from the red-nosed lawmakers denouncing it. Also, that the marijuana lobby isn't as powerful and entrenched as the liquor lobby.
  12. MichiGator2002
    Online

    MichiGator2002 VIP Member

    Joined:
    Apr 3, 2007
    Messages:
    14,875
    Likes Received:
    326
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Ratings Received:
    +896 / 41 / -9
    Marijuana is about the most retarded of all political ditches to choose to die in, is the punchline here. Drug use as an issue of moral restraint, that is the wedge issue keeping libertarians away from social conservatives? Even though democrats aren't helping them out on that either. FFS. I will say again -- libertarian =/= libertine.

    I will offer it again -- would you trade universal drug legalization for strict liability in tort and most criminal law while under the influence?
  13. fastsix
    Offline

    fastsix Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 11, 2007
    Messages:
    5,361
    Likes Received:
    126
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Location:
    Seattle
    Ratings Received:
    +428 / 23 / -9
    Yeah, you're probably right, nobody at those companies smokes marijuana. Especially now that it's legal here.
  14. dynogator
    Offline

    dynogator Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 9, 2007
    Messages:
    5,597
    Likes Received:
    44
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Ratings Received:
    +148 / 1 / -1
    Who's "dying," yeesh, so dramatic.

    Ironically, social conservatives would probably benefit the most from an occasional spark up. I've seen enough socons knocking back drinks to question their credibility on the issue of "moral restraint."

    In answer to your last question, absolutely.
  15. rpmGator
    Offline

    rpmGator Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 10, 2007
    Messages:
    12,556
    Likes Received:
    123
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Location:
    WG/Longboat Key
    Ratings Received:
    +425 / 25 / -4
    When half the people in prison are for drug crimes alone, your restriction is making America a living hell for the victims you jail due to your political stance.
  16. OaktownGator
    Offline

    OaktownGator Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 3, 2007
    Messages:
    23,877
    Likes Received:
    1,961
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Ratings Received:
    +3,633 / 82 / -24
    The govt has no legitimate interest in drawing the line at all.

    It's your business whether you drink coffee or alcohol, or eat Big Macs, or smoke pot.

    None of that is my business, or the business of the govt that represents you and me.

    Now, if you hurt somebody because you drove under the influence of alcohol or pot, or you're driving in a sugar/fat induced coma from your super sized Big Mac meal, then that is our business to hold you accountable for hurting somebody - violating their rights.

    Same goes for anyone who decides to steal, whether it's to feed an addiction or to feed any other perceived need for more money.

    Same goes for anyone who decides to commit battery against another person whether something they ingested affected their judgment, or whether going crazy over some woman affected their judgement, or road rage, or anything else.

    Again in ALL cases here, the only true compelling interest is in holding people accountable for actual rights violations they commit. Not for drinking, or eating big Macs, or being materialistic, or passionate. Actually engaging in behaviors that injure others.

    We don't solve anything by having the govt run roughshod over people's rights and incarcerate them due to some puritanical and often unfounded fears of what people might do under the influence of various things they can ingest.
  17. OaktownGator
    Offline

    OaktownGator Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 3, 2007
    Messages:
    23,877
    Likes Received:
    1,961
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Ratings Received:
    +3,633 / 82 / -24
    As to the OP, I guess Rand is playing the game to get votes, but Ron has to be extremely disappointed.

    Principles and politics just don't seem to mix.

Share This Page