Dr. Paul needs to talk about war on drugs more

[SeanEdwards]

Somebody needs to tell Dr. Paul to put more effort into communicating his opposition to the war on drugs. Next time somebody asks him about war in Iraq, he should be saying "I'm opposed to war in general, including the war on Americans by the US government known as the war on drugs".

I'm serious, this is a winning policy position, and none of the other pandering assclowns want to touch it. It would be another great way to show how Paul is a real alternative to the status quo.

 

[kylejack]

Somebody needs to tell Dr. Paul to put more effort into communicating his opposition to the war on drugs. Next time somebody asks him about war in Iraq, he should be saying "I'm opposed to war in general, including the war on Americans by the US government known as the war on drugs".

I'm serious, this is a winning policy position, and none of the other pandering assclowns want to touch it. It would be another great way to show how Paul is a real alternative to the status quo.

He's kind of hinted at this in a few interviews. When asked about the War on Terror, he says that its silly to declare war on a term, just like the War on Drugs and the War on Poverty.

 

[austinphish]

I agree - Ron Paul needs to stay "controversial"

here is my reaction to the 5/25 Bill Maher was:

Ron Paul needs to stay more on the cutting edge. What got him to where he is now is being "controversial" he should have pushed Bill Maher to think about a new issue. I am glad he repeated some of Debate 2, but people watching this are intelligent and don't need to hear you same the same thing 3 different ways. Push the Constitution, push individual freedom, push habeas corpus. He pussyfooted around a little bit while Maher didn't bring up any other subject than the "war on terror."

I hope RP's next subject is AIPAC on the middle east - if you know anyone who is international they will let you know that it is a fact that America is Israel's puppet. Israel has noble themes, but how can the world not see that Israel needs to take the higher ground. Being anti Israel =! anti-semetic. Then RP states you can check his voting record - he has never voted for AIPACs interests over the interests of Americans.

 

[TheConstitutionLives]

I have mixed feelings about him taking that issue mainstream. That's not gonna sit too well with Grandma and Grandpa who have been conditioned to believe if drugs are legal there will be violence everywhere. The opposite of that is true of course. Him focusing on "Medical" marijuana is the best approach and that's what he's been taking.

 

[Capitalism]

Somebody needs to tell Dr. Paul to put more effort into communicating his opposition to the war on drugs. Next time somebody asks him about war in Iraq, he should be saying "I'm opposed to war in general, including the war on Americans by the US government known as the war on drugs".

I'm serious, this is a winning policy position, and none of the other pandering assclowns want to touch it. It would be another great way to show how Paul is a real alternative to the status quo.

I agree completely that the war on drugs is an abomination. He may be trying to avoid a conflict with some potential supporters right now because much of the conservative movement does not understand the threat to liberty the war on drugs imposes. Seriously, a majority of the nation supports the war on drugs. We can hope the nation wakes up to the mostrosity it has become.

Also, when explaining his opposition to the war in Iraq, I think he is going to need to be really damn specific about WHY he opposes it, so people can remember what is wrong with it. (Think about how people tried to tear him apart saying America deserved 9/11.) Just saying he opposes war in general isn't very convincing to many people. They need to know why. He usually only has a very limited amount of time to answer questions, so he needs to make his answer and the basis for it very clear and convincing.

 

[TaoWarrior]

Not so sure that is a good idea. In the socialy conservative republican party of today war on drugs is not on the table.

Yes it is a great position for the young and socialy liberal but right now we need to win the republican primary. Once we get to the general election that position becomes a more powerful one.

 

[TheConstitutionLives]

I hope RP's next subject is AIPAC on the middle east.

Oh, goodness no. That will be poltical suicide in today's climate. The media will rip him to shreds if he mentions AIPAC.

 

[kylejack]

I have mixed feelings about him taking that position mainstream. That's not gonna sit too well with Grandma and Grandpa who have been conditioned to believe if drugs are legal there will be violence everywhere. The opposite of that is true of course.

But Grandma and Grandpa might be susceptible to arguments that they should be able to buy their prescriptions from Canada, and that their medications are so expensive because it costs a billion dollars (literally a billion dollars) in fees and costs just to navigate a drug through the FDA, nevermind the research and development required before that, and they might be receptive to the fact that cancer patients can't smoke marijuana to restore their appetite and keep their chemo pills down, despite the fact that states have legalized it and the Tenth Amendment prohibits federal intervention.

A liberty message can be catered to the right audience.

 

[kylejack]

Not so sure that is a good idea. In the socialy conservative republican party of today war on drugs is not on the table.

Yes it is a great position for the young and socialy liberal but right now we need to win the republican primary. Once we get to the general election that position becomes a more powerful one.

Oddly enough, most people I talk to, hardcore Republicans included, think the Prohibition of marijuana is ridiculous.

 

[TaoWarrior]

Yes they think so but they will not say it first.

They won't stop voting for Paul because of it but if there are enough other questions it just adds one more. Remember the first time most people hear about Ron Paul they are being told he is a kook. So the first thing we want them to hear after that is not yeah and he is against the war on drugs.

I agree that the message can be tailored to the right audiance just be careful of which mesage to which audiance.

 

[SeanEdwards]

I have mixed feelings about him taking that issue mainstream. That's not gonna sit too well with Grandma and Grandpa who have been conditioned to believe if drugs are legal there will be violence everywhere. The opposite of that is true of course. Him focusing on "Medical" marijuana is the best approach and that's what he's been taking.

I really don't think it's dangerous at all. Those people who are still gung ho for locking up pot smokers are not going to vote for RP anyway, because those are the same people that still love the Bush administration.

Opposition to the war on drugs, both from the individual liberty position, and from the excess government spending position is potentially a huge win. I think it has great cross-over appeal and could get even more independents to register republican.

 

[angelatc]

I don't like the idea of stumping on a platform of reforming drug laws. Keep the message about State's rights.

The Governors are the people who should be lured by that song. It would give them a lot more power than they have now, especially if the 17th amendment was repealed.

The days of the career politicians in the Senate would just about be done.

 

[ronpaulitician]

There's no use in running away from the views Ron Paul believes in, even if those views may not sit well with some potential voters.
a) Those views are what makes Ron Paul who he is.
b) Those views will eventually be brought up by his opponents in order to demonize him. Best to (1) beat them to the punch, and (2) get some publicity out of it.

I think right now, at least until the next debate (June 5), Paul should focus on the "blowback" issue, and try to get Giuliani to bite. Rudy has proven that he has nothing substantial to say on the issue (see his replies to Dr. Paul's reading assignment), so hopefully he'll say something stupid in response.

Although I like to see Paul speak from the heart, he MUST have a strategy to handle the few potential replies Rudy will give to the obvious "Have you read the 9/11 report?" question that will come forth in this debate (either from the moderator, or from Paul himself). A nice soundbite in reply to Rudy's answer could mean a couple points in the offline polls, especially in the NH polls.

 

[kylejack]

The Barry Goldwater quote here is more apt than ever before:

"Let me remind you that extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice. And moderation in the pursuit of justice is no virtue."

 

[tnvoter]

The Barry Goldwater quote here is more apt than ever before:

"Let me remind you that extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice. And moderation in the pursuit of justice is no virtue."

i love it.

 

[Anne]

That's not gonna sit too well with Grandma and Grandpa who have been conditioned to believe if drugs are legal there will be violence everywhere.

My grandma is 100 years old and wants to see marijuana legalized. Don't put all "old" people into one prudish pot.

Ron Paul believes in legalizing drugs. We should embrace that rather than try to hide it. He isn't trying to hide it.

 

[Anne]

Opposition to the war on drugs, both from the individual liberty position, and from the excess government spending position is potentially a huge win. I think it has great cross-over appeal and could get even more independents to register republican.

Amen! California voters made medical marijuana legal but the Fed continues to prosecute them. Ron Paul can win the primary in California by letting them know he will allow their vote for medical marijuana to stand.

Why are people so afraid of this issue? Marijuana is one of the best drugs we have as a people. Stop putting your fears onto Ron Paul and the rest of us!

 

[CurtisLow]

My grandma is 100 years old and wants to see marijuana legalized. Don't put all "old" people into one prudish pot.

Ron Paul believes in legalizing drugs. We should embrace that rather than try to hide it. He isn't trying to hide it.

Go grandma!

The count down...

Most dangerous drugs
Research recently published in the medical journal The Lancet rates the most dangerous drugs (starting with the worst) as follows:

1. Heroin
2. Cocaine
3. Barbiturates
4. Street methadone
5. Alcohol
6. Ketamine
7. Benzodiazepines
8. Amphetamine
9. Tobacco
10. Buprenorphine
11. Cannabis
12. Solvents
13. 4-MTA
14. LSD
15. Methylphenidate
16. Anabolic steroids
17. GHB
18. Ecstasy
19. Alkyl nitrates
20. Khat

 

[Brandybuck]

We should embrace that rather than try to hide it. He isn't trying to hide it.

Ron Paul has lots of positions, and we should embrace them all. But his emphasis has always been on the economy (taxes, fed, etc), so that deserves a little bigger embrace than the others.

IMHO.

 

[SeanEdwards]

The Barry Goldwater quote here is more apt than ever before:

"Let me remind you that extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice. And moderation in the pursuit of justice is no virtue."

Barry Goldwater favored de-criminalizing marijuana.