# Liberty Movement > Defenders of Liberty > Thomas Massie Forum >  Massie's view on the drug war?

## tsetsefly

Anyone know what his views are on the drug war?
imo, its a huge issue for me and most liberty candidate supporters.

----------


## lib3rtarian

I bet it's the same as ours, but I don't want it on record from him till _after_ November, because I don't want anyone using it against him and scare the neocons off from voting for him.

----------


## Crotale

> I bet it's the same as ours, but I don't want it on record from him till _after_ November, because I don't want anyone using it against him and scare the neocons off from voting for him.


Pandering won't get us anywhere. It's them (the establishment) who should be hiding from their beliefs, not us. This is the R3VOLUTION.

----------


## lib3rtarian

> Pandering won't get us anywhere. It's them (the establishment) who should be hiding from their beliefs, not us. This is the R3VOLUTION.


This is not pandering. This is just tact. Pandering would be if Massie was saying a lie just to get some votes. But there is no reason to bring up the drug policy before November. That said, he shouldn't lie about it either if asked.

----------


## tsetsefly

I agree that he should not make it #1 issue or talk about it that much as it scares off neocons but I sure hope he is against it. I can't support him if he is for it..

----------


## Crotale

> This is not pandering. This is just tact. Pandering would be if Massie was saying a lie just to get some votes. But there is no reason to bring up the drug policy before November. That said, he shouldn't lie about it either if asked.


I never said bring it up, but you said not put it on record. If asked, he should state loudly and proudly that he supports full legalisation of drugs. Anything else is unacceptable.

----------


## lib3rtarian

> I never said bring it up, but you said not put it on record. If asked, he should state loudly and proudly that he supports full legalisation of drugs. Anything else is unacceptable.


Yeah, that's when the MSM will ask him "So does that mean Heroine too?" and it will be all downhill from there. In a perfect world, the media will allow him to explain the futility of the drug war, but in our reality, the media wouldn't settle for anything less than an "Yes" out of him for that question, cut him off after that, and which will then be fodder for endless attack ads against him. We should pick our battles. Seriously.

I think he should answer the question truthfully, but I suggest "decriminalization" as the buzzword instead of "full legalization".

----------


## Austin

> Supports federalism on all legislation not specifically authorized in the Constitution


That means he doesn't believe the federal government has any authority to create laws prohibiting growing or using cannabis. Reason solidified this when they profiled him, and said the following:




> Much like Rand Paul and his father Ron, Massie’s small-government instincts extend far beyond keeping a tight grip on the checkbook. He’s also opposed to the PATRIOT Act, warrantless wiretapping, the police state, the drug war, and military adventurism.


We also know that he is for the legalization of hemp.

[Source 1] [Source 2] [Source 3]




> I never said bring it up, but you said not put it on record. If asked, he should state loudly and proudly that* he supports full legalisation of drugs. Anything else is unacceptable.*


Thank God you're not running his campaign.

----------


## Sola_Fide

> I never said bring it up, but you said not put it on record. If asked, he should state loudly and proudly that he supports full legalisation of drugs. Anything else is unacceptable.


What's unacceptable is if he would destroy his campaign over drug legalization issues.

We went through this same thing with Rand.  After Rand won his primary, many started to call on him to go full Ron and start advocating for drug legalization.  Thank God he didn't do that, because if he did, we would have a socialist named Jack Conway for a senator.

Look, my own opinion is that Thomas does not need to be out in front on the drug legalization issue to make a difference.  He can work with hemp issues and marijuana decriminalization issues behind the scenes without being a full-on legalization warrior.  It would be political suicide in the 4th District to do that.

----------


## Austin

> What's unacceptable is if he would destroy his campaign over drug legalization issues.
> 
> We went through this same thing with Rand.  After Rand won his primary, many started to call on him to go full Ron and start advocating for drug legalization.  Thank God he didn't do that, because if he did, we would have a socialist named Jack Conway for a senator.
> 
> Look, my own opinion is that Thomas does not need to be out in front on the drug legalization issue to make a difference.  He can work with hemp issues and marijuana decriminalization issues behind the scenes without being a full-on legalization warrior.  *It would be political suicide in the 4th District to do that.*


Who cares? He doesn't belong in this movement if he isn't able to assertively proclaim that he supports full legalization and zero regulation for heroine, cocaine, and meth.

Electoral success and pragmatism be damned. 



/sarcasm

----------


## muzzled dogg

what about gay marriage?  i asked the question and my thread was closed

----------


## tsetsefly

> what about gay marriage?  i asked the question and my thread was closed


I would bet he is against it... 

I personally am in favor of gay marriage, I really dont care who want's to get married as long as they are consenting adults... Not allowing gays to marry is just using government to force one's beliefs onto the rest of us...

----------


## GeorgiaAvenger

> Who cares? He doesn't belong in this movement if he isn't able to assertively proclaim that he supports full legalization and zero regulation for heroine, cocaine, and meth.
> 
> Electoral success and pragmatism be damned.


In other words, lets all be a bunch of ideological losers.

No thanks. I like winning. That is the only way progress is made.

----------


## trey4sports

> I would bet he is against it... 
> 
> I personally am in favor of gay marriage, I really dont care who want's to get married as long as they are consenting adults... Not allowing gays to marry is just using government to force one's beliefs onto the rest of us...



not really.... 

legalizing gay marriage is the equivalent of using government force to change a religious ceremony.

----------


## Cowlesy

None of these (sorry) stupid pet issues are going to be of any consequence if we do not get the federal fiscal house in order.  They just won't matter.

Once we get things fixed fiscally, you can start to resolve all these pressing and dire social issues.

----------


## Kotin

> None of these (sorry) stupid pet issues are going to be of any consequence if we do not get the federal fiscal house in order.  They just won't matter.
> 
> Once we get things fixed fiscally, you can start to resolve all these pressing and dire social issues.


/thread

----------


## kill the banks

> None of these (sorry) stupid pet issues are going to be of any consequence if we do not get the federal fiscal house in order.  They just won't matter.
> 
> Once we get things fixed fiscally, you can start to resolve all these pressing and dire social issues.


yes agreed fully ... getting off track just is a step back

----------


## Sam I am

> not really.... 
> 
> legalizing gay marriage is the equivalent of using government force to change a religious ceremony.


Religion doesn't have a monopoly on marriage.  It originated as a business contract.

----------


## tsetsefly

> not really.... 
> 
> legalizing gay marriage is the equivalent of using government force to change a religious ceremony.


Except marriage is not a religious ceremony...

Government forcing churches to marry gay couples = bad

Government giving gay couples the right to marry =  good

----------


## trey4sports

> Except marriage is not a religious ceremony...
> 
> Government forcing churches to marry gay couples = bad
> 
> Government giving gay couples the right to marry =  good


marriage IS a religious ceremony.... where do you think it came from?

----------


## tod evans

> Except marriage is not a religious ceremony...
> 
> Government forcing churches to marry gay couples = bad
> 
> Government giving gay couples the right to marry =  good


Nope......

Government completely out of the marriage business = good

----------


## tsetsefly

> Nope......
> 
> Government completely out of the marriage business = good


But that wont be possibe. Religious organization don't want government out of marriage.

----------


## Sola_Fide

> But that wont be possibe. Religious organization don't want government out of marriage.


Then they are just as wrong as homosexuals who want government licensing.  Set your mind on liberty, not this false gay propaganda.

----------


## tod evans

> But that wont be possibe. Religious organization don't want government out of marriage.


That's contrary to what I hear in church.....

It's my understanding that the "church" wants the government to stay out of its business.

----------


## tsetsefly

> marriage IS a religious ceremony.... where do you think it came from?


marriage predates religion and especially the organized religions that are the biggest defenders of marriage....

Even if you make the argument that it comes from religion today it is not only religion that uses it and if Religious people want it that way then make government only recognize unions...

----------


## tsetsefly

> That's contrary to what I hear in church.....
> 
> It's my understanding that the "church" wants the government to stay out of its business.


come one now... not when it comes to marriage the Church most definitely wants government to recognize and exclude same-sex consenting adults from enjoying the same benefit.

Ideally, yes getting government completely out of marriage is way better. 

But that will almost be impossible so we are left with this question:

Do we let same-sex consenting adults enjoy the same "benefits" marriage offers to straight couples or not?? IMO, yes...

----------


## Feeding the Abscess

> None of these (sorry) stupid pet issues are going to be of any consequence if we do not get the federal fiscal house in order.  They just won't matter.
> 
> Once we get things fixed fiscally, you can start to resolve all these pressing and dire social issues.


Drug war isn't a stupid pet issue, it's a pretty serious fiscal issue (ignoring the immorality of regulating human behavior for a minute). It costs billions a year to enforce, ends lives, overcrowds prisons, turns productive people into unproductive people and possibly even turns non-violent criminals into violent criminals. It's also responsible in part for the breakdown of the black family, and who is going to pay for the kids and spouses of those imprisoned by the drug war?

Taxpayers get to pay to have their rights aggressed against and have families torn apart, and then they get to pay for the aftermath.

----------


## muzzled dogg

if you have a loved one incarcerated for non-violent drug charges then the drug war is not a petty issue

if you're a man and he happens to be your husband and only spouses are grannted visitation then gay marriage is not a petty issue

----------


## tod evans

You have blatantly misrepresented the church I attend.

As for the "we" when you ask about ***** enjoying benefits of marriage...."My" position remains the same, keep the government out of the marriage business.

If "you" want to accept **** marriages then cool....but don't tell me "I" have to.





> come one now... not when it comes to marriage the Church most definitely wants government to recognize and exclude same-sex consenting adults from enjoying the same benefit.
> 
> Ideally, yes getting government completely out of marriage is way better. 
> 
> But that will almost be impossible so we are left with this question:
> 
> Do we let same-sex consenting adults enjoy the same "benefits" marriage offers to straight couples or not?? IMO, yes...

----------


## kuckfeynes

> if you have a loved one incarcerated for non-violent drug charges then the drug war is not a petty issue
> 
> if you're a man and he happens to be your husband and only spouses are grannted visitation then gay marriage is not a petty issue


This is the real crux of the matter. I guess if these guys think it's better to hide from these issues now for strategic reasons, more power to 'em. But they better eventually get comfortable with these answers because they're not going to go away on their own...

----------


## BamaFanNKy

OK... I contacted Mike Riggs write this article for a reason. Google is our friend:



> Much like Rand Paul and his father Ron, Massie’s small-government instincts extend far beyond keeping a tight grip on the checkbook. He’s also opposed to the PATRIOT Act, warrantless wiretapping, the police state, the drug war, and military adventurism. Massie’s views on civil liberties put a lot of daylight between him and his most well-known competitor for the GOP nomination, state legislator Alecia Webb-Edgington. A former member of the Kentucky State Police and the Department of Homeland Security, Webb-Edgington also helped launch Kentucky’s DHS-funded Fusion Center and told the crowd at a 2010 Lincoln Dinner, “We don’t need any more socialists, communists, or libertarians in the Republican Party.”


http://reason.com/archives/2012/03/1...next-rand-paul

Being so vocal on these issues in Kentucky is tough. We are making baby steps. We got Marijuana charges reduced to fines if caught. We are working on Hemp legislation and some have already moved towards Med MJ legislation. It is actually coming through Conservative wing of Dems and friendly GOP who appreciate that we don't deliver our message like Ron. Each region reacts different to style. Rand's style works better in Kentucky.

----------


## Sola_Fide

> OK... I contacted Mike Riggs write this article for a reason. Google is our friend:
> 
> 
> http://reason.com/archives/2012/03/1...next-rand-paul
> 
> Being so vocal on these issues in Kentucky is tough. We are making baby steps. We got Marijuana charges reduced to fines if caught. We are working on Hemp legislation and some have already moved towards Med MJ legislation. It is actually coming through Conservative wing of Dems and friendly GOP who appreciate that we don't deliver our message like Ron. Each region reacts different to style. Rand's style works better in Kentucky.


^^^yes

----------


## Austin

> In other words, lets all be a bunch of ideological losers.
> 
> No thanks. I like winning. That is the only way progress is made.


Should have put a /sarcasm tag on there — I thought it I put a heavy enough dose on there that everyone would notice.

----------


## trey4sports

yes everyone knows that article in which it says Thomas is against the Drug War but i think i speak for everyone when i say we'd like a direct quote. That writer could have merely made an assumption.

----------


## brandon

> None of these (sorry) stupid pet issues are going to be of any consequence if we do not get the federal fiscal house in order.  They just won't matter.
> 
> Once we get things fixed fiscally, you can start to resolve all these pressing and dire social issues.


I'm not an expert on the topic, but the drug war is much more than just a social issue. The feds blow billions every year pursuing the drug war, and the states blow billions housing inmates and enforcing the laws. The productivity of the people that got caught in the system is usually forever destroyed.  All the potential medicines and industrial products that could come from illegal drugs would provide a wealth of new opportunities for people.  It may not be the biggest fiscal issue, but it definitely shouldn't be written off either.

I understand the nature of politics and know if Massie wants to win he can't discuss this. A lot of us just seem to be unsure of the efficacy of this strategy.

----------


## tsetsefly

> You have blatantly misrepresented the church I attend.
> 
> As for the "we" when you ask about ***** enjoying benefits of marriage...."My" position remains the same, keep the government out of the marriage business.
> 
> If "you" want to accept **** marriages then cool....but don't tell me "I" have to.


You dont have to. But until the government gets out of the marriage business alltogether I cant see how you can deny gay couples the same rights...

btw nice of you to call them *****...

----------


## ryanmkeisling

> None of these (sorry) stupid pet issues are going to be of any consequence if we do not get the federal fiscal house in order.  They just won't matter.
> 
> Once we get things fixed fiscally, you can start to resolve all these pressing and dire social issues.


They shouldn't be of any concern or consequence in the first place, from a Federal perspective. IMHO.

This new breed of Liberty candidate strays from Ron Paul in that they compromise on the message in order to attract the very voters who have ruined the country in the first place.  This is called advancing the cause.  We'll see, but in my experience you can't have the cake and eat it too.  If they were true liberty candidates they would be proud to stand tall and expound the virtues of liberty, just like Ron Paul has always done, not tailor the message to certain demographics.

Thomas is a member of these forums no?  He should then come on here and field these questions, that way none of his views will be misrepresented.  I mean the guy no ill will, I highly respect his decision to run for public office, but some things need clarification for some of us. The devil is always in the details.

----------


## 1836

> Who cares? He doesn't belong in this movement if he isn't able to assertively proclaim that he supports full legalization and zero regulation for heroine, cocaine, and meth.
> 
> Electoral success and pragmatism be damned.


Well, go run for office and do everything right, but also claim loudly and proudly that you support full legalization of drugs.

See how far that gets you.

If our candidates cannot learn how to use tact, then they won't get elected. Rand and Thomas BOTH used tact, as well as Justin Amash, and what do you know, they all won their races. EVEN THEN Rand still got hammered on it by Conway before the general.

----------


## 1836

> They shouldn't be of any concern or consequence in the first place, from a Federal perspective. IMHO.
> 
> This new breed of Liberty candidate strays from Ron Paul in that they compromise on the message in order to attract the very voters who have ruined the country in the first place.  This is called advancing the cause.  We'll see, but in my experience you can't have the cake and eat it too.  If they were true liberty candidates they would be proud to stand tall and expound the virtues of liberty, just like Ron Paul has always done, not tailor the message to certain demographics.
> 
> Thomas is a member of these forums no?  He should then come on here and field these questions, that way none of his views will be misrepresented.  I mean the guy no ill will, I highly respect his decision to run for public office, but some things need clarification for some of us. The devil is always in the details.


Ron Paul had a unique advantage in holding office, in that he had such a strong connection to his district that he was politically untouchable regardless of what he said. He had delivered so many of his constituents and knew the families and the communities so well that even when they disagreed with him, which was not infrequent, they chalked it up to "Ron being Ron." They loved him despite what they felt were his idiosyncrasies.

That does not mean that Ron Paul only kept his district for that reason, but it played a tremendous role. Other candidates, and the vast majority actually, will simply not have that kind of advantage. Therefore, in order to get elected, they're going to have to convince voters that they are acceptable on the issues as well as being acceptable personally.

But if voters do not know you and you turn them off by things you stand for that they strongly oppose, you will not get their vote in all likelihood.

----------


## fr33

> None of these (sorry) stupid pet issues are going to be of any consequence if we do not get the *federal fiscal house* in order.  They just won't matter.
> 
> Once we get things fixed fiscally, you can start to resolve all these pressing and dire social issues.


Insert "terrorism problem" in for the bold phrase and you find yourself using neocon logic and justification. If LIBERTY is the goal, liberating our own bodies is imperative. It absolutely does matter. It's related. Not only do they want to centrally plan the economy, they also want to socially engineer our lifestyles. Both things are equally evil.

----------


## thoughtomator

Does anyone here seriously think Dr. Paul would endorse a candidate who wasn't on the right side of this issue? Forcing a direct statement can only be used by Massie's opponents to demagogue the issue.

----------


## Sola_Fide

> Does anyone here seriously think Dr. Paul would endorse a candidate who wasn't on the right side of this issue? Forcing a direct statement can only be used by Massie's opponents to demagogue the issue.


I'm convinced that there are those armchair anarchists out there who never want anyone to win an election.  They see winning itself as "compromise".

----------


## Bastiat's The Law

> I'm convinced that there are those armchair anarchists out there who never want anyone to win an election.  They see winning itself as "compromise".


They're perpetual defeatists.

----------


## Bastiat's The Law

By the way the liberty movement is a big team guys.  The players in this movement bring different things to the table.  You don't go asking your second baseman to hit you 40 homeruns a season, nor would you expect your lumbering first baseman to cover the range your svelte shortstop does.  Everybody has their role to play so we win and actually accomplish something.  Liberty candidates in the South will focus more on fiscal issues, and their west coast brethren can focus more on railing against the drug war where the issue plays better.  Knowing your audience is politics 101 guys, let's not be rubes on this otherwise you end up with Webb-Edgington type republicans who will only expand the prison industrial complex.  One historical anecdote, remember that Themistocles had to lie to the Athenian population to get them to invest their wealth in trireme ships to defend the city against a Persian invasion years before the threat came to fruition.  Just because you temper your message, doesn't mean you're any less a patriot.  

Remember Themistocles and the Trireme

----------


## Bastiat's The Law

Let the west coast and upper east coast Liberty movement take on the drug war issue where it plays best.

----------


## BamaFanNKy

If some of you can not put 2 and 2 together..... I can't help you.

----------


## Austin

> Well, go run for office and do everything right, but also claim loudly and proudly that you support full legalization of drugs.
> 
> See how far that gets you.
> 
> If our candidates cannot learn how to use tact, then they won't get elected. Rand and Thomas BOTH used tact, as well as Justin Amash, and what do you know, they all won their races. EVEN THEN Rand still got hammered on it by Conway before the general.


I need to edit my post so everyone knows I was being sarcastic.  I mean, look at my signature for Pete's sake.

----------


## trey4sports

> *Does anyone here seriously think Dr. Paul would endorse a candidate who wasn't on the right side of this issue?* Forcing a direct statement can only be used by Massie's opponents to demagogue the issue.


yes.

Look at Ron's endorsements over the last 4 years. He has endorsed a lot of people and of course most of them were pretty bad. They were, however, better than the alternative which is why Ron endorsed them.

----------


## brandon

Here's an old video of Paul discussing the importance of being able to talk about the drug issue open and frankly. 
See 14:00 as well as many other times.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GewLKQU7XSs

----------


## Krzysztof Lesiak

Agreed. He shouldn't bring them up. He has to unite the GOP base to win. Remember that Rand didn't win by preaching non-intervention and marijuana legalization 2 years ago. He knew his audience, and I'm sure Massie will act smart, too.

----------

