Chuck Balwin to stem the flow of illegal drugs.video

[Leadman584]

In this interview, Chuck Baldwin states the need to stop illegal drug importation.
Is he advocating continuing the war on drugs?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y4rLs8E7fDs&feature=user

 

[Arklatex]

I say yes. It's not getting to the root of the problem and he's only causing price increases! =)

 

[powerofreason]

Yea man. Whats up with coke prices these days?

 

[Grimnir Wotansvolk]

This is why you buy homegrown

 

[speciallyblend]

hmm

This is why you buy homegrown

that is why you move to colorado where it's a 100 dollar fine to have an ounce,so a speeding ticket cost you more

 

[ChrisInMN]

that is why you move to colorado where it's a 100 dollar fine to have an ounce,so a speeding ticket cost you more

http://s351.photobucket.com/albums/q473/grude420/?action=view&current=Picture001.jpg

This dude was holding this sign up at the Straw Poll in Iowa Aug. 2007

ChrisInMN

 

[Dr.3D]

The very best way to stem the flow of illegal drugs is to make them legal. If there are no illegal drugs, then there can't be a flow of illegal drugs because there would be no such thing as an illegal drug.

 

[Knightskye]

He supports the Drug War...

He's no Ron Paul.

 

[Kalifornia]

Yet another reason not to vote for that douche.

 

[GunnyFreedom]

Chuck Baldwin believes Medical Marijuana should be left to the individual states, and that the Fed has no business with it:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BaZ2retiNdk

Clearly, the video in this thread was talking primarily about the BORDER, and not drugs. Baldwin was saying that drugs, like illegal immigrants, must be prevented from crossing the border. That does not mean that he is in favor of the 'War on Drugs' but I honestly don't know either way. I'm sending him an e-mail to ask him about his position on the war on drugs. I will say, in regards to this thread, however, it's pretty stupid to just assume he is in favor of the war on drugs just because he believes that we should stop illicit drug importation.

I personally believe that drug prohibition should be ended altogether as it is far more harmful than helpful; yet I agree that we should prevent drugs from being smuggled over our borders. I mean, honestly! Who the frak knows what all is going to be in drugs that spent a month inside a donkey's anus?

When Baldwin answers my e-mail, I will report what he says. Until then, you know what they say about assuming...

 

[GunnyFreedom]

Text of my e-mail to Chuck Balwin's campaign:

Subj: Question about policies

Dear Chuck Baldwin,

I am a former Marine and an ardent Strict Constructionist. I am currently trying to determine whom to support in November, and I have a pretty clear idea of your policies. I have not, however, seen your policies with regards to the Federal War on Drugs, Drug Prohibition, and Prescription Drug Regulation.

Please tell me where you stand with regards to the Federal War on Drugs, Drug Prohibition, and Prescription Drug Regulation and the legal status of public access to prescription drugs.

Thank you in advance for your time,

Glen Bradley

 

[Grimnir Wotansvolk]

Well, therein lies the catch-22. If the war on drugs were ended, the buyer would have little or no incentive to go after the ones that "spent a month inside a donkey's anus", as they could get better quality elsewhere. That, and there'd also be no need for anyone to insert drugs into the rectums of donkeys, unless they're really into that sort of thing sexually.

Drugs are simply a commodity, and deserve to be treated as such. If we're to believe in free trade, why should we prevent the trade of drugs across the southern border? At best, this is economic protectionism. At worst, it's a thinly-veiled attempt to keep the drug-war going without actually saying so outright.

 

[GunnyFreedom]

Well, therein lies the catch-22. If the war on drugs were ended, the buyer would have little or no incentive to go after the ones that "spent a month inside a donkey's anus", as they could get better quality elsewhere. That, and there'd also be no need for anyone to insert drugs into the rectums of donkeys, unless they're really into that sort of thing sexually.

Drugs are simply a commodity, and deserve to be treated as such. If we're to believe in free trade, why should we prevent the trade of drugs across the southern border? At best, this is economic protectionism. At worst, it's a thinly-veiled attempt to keep the drug-war going without actually saying so outright.

Problem there is, even if the US legalizes drugs altogether, most foreign exporters of drugs are either 1) illegal in the source country and must be smuggled out, or 2) used as a direct source of funding for groups like Al Qaieda -- which while we should NOT be in Iraq, nor should we enable the funding of Al Qaieda.

In scenario 1, they were still in a donkey's rectum at some point in the process, and in scenario 2, coming from an illicit source they may be tainted from the origin.

In other words, even if they were completely legalized int he US, there would still be a dozen reasons to shut them down at the border.

Look at it this way -- alcohol used to be under prohibition and now it is not. It is fine and dandy to import wine from France - a known good source, clean, safe, and free from funding groups who want to kill us. (NOTE - I am NOT talking about Iraq here, I am not trying to play the 'scare card' but there legitimately are groups who honestly do want to kill us...an argument may be made that ther desire is legitimate, but that is irrelevant to the point at hand...and many of those groups are primarily funded by selling us drugs)

We import wine from France, but it it still illegal to sneak in moonshine hooch from Tijuana, as it well should be unless the moonshine hooch vendor chooses to incorporate and trade with te US via legal and established means.

The same applies to CLOTHING for goodness sake! Jeans that are smuggled illegally into the US vs jeans that are legally imported.

How about everyone stop assuming, and wait to see what Mr Baldwin actually has to say on the matter?

 

[JosephTheLibertarian]

Chuck Baldwin believes Medical Marijuana should be left to the individual states, and that the Fed has no business with it:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BaZ2retiNdk

Clearly, the video in this thread was talking primarily about the BORDER, and not drugs. Baldwin was saying that drugs, like illegal immigrants, must be prevented from crossing the border. That does not mean that he is in favor of the 'War on Drugs' but I honestly don't know either way. I'm sending him an e-mail to ask him about his position on the war on drugs. I will say, in regards to this thread, however, it's pretty stupid to just assume he is in favor of the war on drugs just because he believes that we should stop illicit drug importation.

I personally believe that drug prohibition should be ended altogether as it is far more harmful than helpful; yet I agree that we should prevent drugs from being smuggled over our borders. I mean, honestly! Who the frak knows what all is going to be in drugs that spent a month inside a donkey's anus?

When Baldwin answers my e-mail, I will report what he says. Until then, you know what they say about assuming...

Chuck Baldwin is a theocratic protectionist. What do you expect? He's trying to lean libertarian in order to get the Ron Paul and libertarian votes. Any true libertarian that votes for him is just plain ignorant.

 

[Theocrat]

Libertarian Nominalism

Chuck Baldwin is a theocratic protectionist. What do you expect? He's trying to lean libertarian in order to get the Ron Paul and libertarian votes. Any true libertarian that votes for him is just plain ignorant.

You don't even know what a true libertarian is, you libertine. So just hush your mouth before I stick a Constitution in it.

 

[JosephTheLibertarian]

You don't even know what a true libertarian is, you libertine. So just hush your mouth before I stick a Constitution in it.

Libertarianism has nothing to do with the US Constitution. You're not even a libertarian, you admit to being a theocrat; hell, that's your NAME!

 

[Theocrat]

God's Rule is the Precondition for Libertarianism

Libertarianism has nothing to do with the US Constitution. You're not even a libertarian, you admit to being a theocrat; hell, that's your NAME!

Libertarianism deals with the issue of limited government, and the U.S. Constitution does just that. It limits the size and scope of government by giving it enumerated powers. Even Congressman Paul recognizes this (watch between 1:55 - 2:08).

Also, you show your perpetual ignorance by your misunderstandings of what a theocracy is. Theocracy is libertarian in nature due to its acknowledgment of separate institutions in a society with limited jurisdictions, all ordained and governed under the principle of the rule of law, which comes from the Lawgiver and Sustainer of our rights. Of course, I wouldn't expect a libertine such as yourself to know anything about that.

Evolve, my friend.

 

[Knightskye]

or 2) used as a direct source of funding for groups like Al Qaieda

I'm sorry, was that fear-mongering?

Look at it this way -- alcohol used to be under prohibition and now it is not. It is fine and dandy to import wine from France - a known good source, clean, safe, and free from funding groups who want to kill us.

Canada doesn't want to kill us. Can they send drugs across the border?

Oh, and you should really listen to Dr. Paul when he talks about blowback.

many of those groups are primarily funded by selling us drugs)

I'd be fine with this sentence if you proved it.

The same applies to CLOTHING for goodness sake! Jeans that are smuggled illegally into the US vs jeans that are legally imported.

Yeah, guess where jeans are made. Are they any more unsafe than illegal jeans?

How about everyone stop assuming, and wait to see what Mr Baldwin actually has to say on the matter?

He said in the video that we have to stop the importation of drugs across the border.

Here's video of Dr. Paul talking about drugs:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vpgWAAmVwDM&feature=related

There are many more. Just do a YouTube search for "Ron Paul war on drugs".

 

[Kalifornia]

Chuck Baldwin believes Medical Marijuana should be left to the individual states, and that the Fed has no business with it:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BaZ2retiNdk

Clearly, the video in this thread was talking primarily about the BORDER, and not drugs. Baldwin was saying that drugs, like illegal immigrants, must be prevented from crossing the border. That does not mean that he is in favor of the 'War on Drugs' but I honestly don't know either way. I'm sending him an e-mail to ask him about his position on the war on drugs. I will say, in regards to this thread, however, it's pretty stupid to just assume he is in favor of the war on drugs just because he believes that we should stop illicit drug importation.

I personally believe that drug prohibition should be ended altogether as it is far more harmful than helpful; yet I agree that we should prevent drugs from being smuggled over our borders. I mean, honestly! Who the frak knows what all is going to be in drugs that spent a month inside a donkey's anus?

When Baldwin answers my e-mail, I will report what he says. Until then, you know what they say about assuming...

Youve made a fair point. Id just like to point out that legalizing drugs would be the fastest way to stop the smuggling of it. If he is talking about keeping it out of the country, he is not talking about legalization or decriminalization.

 

[JosephTheLibertarian]

Libertarianism deals with the issue of limited government, and the U.S. Constitution does just that. It limits the size and scope of government by giving it enumerated powers. Even Congressman Paul recognizes this (watch between 1:55 - 2:08).

I watched that interview. Ron Paul is not a libertarian, k? He's a libertarian-leaning conservative. True libertarians don't even believe in a state. Former LP nomination seeker Steve Kubby said it himself: states don't have rights, people have rights. And Steve was one of the purists in the running. Don't tell me what libertarianism is, sucker.

Also, you show your perpetual ignorance by your misunderstandings of what a theocracy is. Theocracy is libertarian in nature due to its acknowledgment of separate institutions in a society with limited jurisdictions, all ordained and governed under the principle of the rule of law, which comes from the Lawgiver and Sustainer of our rights. Of course, I wouldn't expect a libertine such as yourself to know anything about that.

Nice personal attacks. People sometimes get banned for stuff like that. All of the libertarians I ever met OPPOSE the conjoinment of church & state. Sorry, buddy.

Evolve, my friend.

I have. That's why I don't need imaginary friends.