Glenn Beck Radio: On Palin's endorsement on Rand (with his stupid side kick)

[haaaylee]

YouTube - Glenn Beck Palin and Rand Paul

 

[Bruehound]

Morons both of them.

 

[Bruno]

please don't make me watch the whole clip, or does he talk about it for 8:43?

 

[AuH20]

I really dislike sidekick Pat. With that said, I think Beck mischaracterizes Dr. Paul's stances about eradicating departments. Ron made it abundantly clear that it would be a gradual, stage-by-stage process to ween the American people off these counterproductive agencies.

I liked Beck's point about the likely possibility of the entire population embracing a more apathetic approach when they're literally walking over strung-out heroin users in the street. If you're going to go the full legalization route, there is going to be an ugly fallout at your local hospital and in the streets.

 

[Bruehound]

If you're going to go the full legalization route, there is going to be an ugly fallout at your local hospital and in the streets.

I will be polite and simply say that I strongly disagree with this statement. People who are not doing heroin today will continue to not do heroin when it is legal.

 

[AuH20]

I will be polite and simply say that I strongly disagree with this statement. People who are not doing heroin today will continue to not do heroin when it is legal.

What if it's subsidized somehow in a roundabout way? I'm of the mind that some of the more benign substances should be legalized but the extremely addictive substances leaves me at a pause. Take for example the incredible reception to alcohol. Color me as skeptical.

 

[gls]

I will be polite and simply say that I strongly disagree with this statement. People who are not doing heroin today will continue to not do heroin when it is legal.

Bingo.

Poll: 99 Percent Wouldn't Use Hard Drugs If They Were Legalized

http://stopthedrugwar.org/chronicle_blog/2007/dec/05/poll_hard_drug_legalization_little_use

If Heroin or Cocaine Were Legal, Would You Use Them?
Zogby Poll Suggests Prohibition Doesn't Reduce Hard Drug Use

Washington, DC -- Marking the 74th anniversary of the repeal of national Alcohol Prohibition, StoptheDrugWar.org today released polling results suggesting that drug prohibition's main supporting argument may be simply wrong. Drug policy reformers point to a wide range of demonstrated social harms created by the drug laws -- crime and violence, spread of infectious diseases, official corruption, easy funding for terrorist groups, to name a few -- while prohibitionists argue that use and addiction would explode if drugs were legalized. But is the prohibitionist assumption well-founded?

Zogby polling data released today asked 1,028 likely voters, "If hard drugs such as heroin or cocaine were legalized, would you be likely to use them?" Ninety-ninety percent of respondents answered, "No." Only 0.6 percent said "Yes." The remaining 0.4 percent weren't sure.

While some of the "no" respondents may have been overoptimistic about their future self-discipline -- current use rates under prohibition are slightly higher than that -- the survey nevertheless demonstrates that almost all Americans consider the use of certain drugs to be inadvisable, for reasons other than their legal status. It is therefore unclear that laws are needed to dissuade them from using "hard drugs" or that legalization would result in increased addiction rates. The social implosion predicted by some drug warriors seems especially unlikely.

The results are similar to usage rates occurring under today's "drug war," as measured by the federal government's National Survey on Drug Use and Health (formerly the National Household Survey). The 2006 NSDUH found 0.3 percent of the population had used heroin in the past month and 2.4 percent had used cocaine. Even for cocaine, the numbers are compatible, because Zogby surveyed persons aged 18 years and up, while NSDUH begins with age 12; and because of the poll's statistical margin of error of 3.1 percentage points.

A comparison of drug use rates in countries with criminal penalties for drug use with the drug use rates of countries that have decriminalized personal use also suggests that policy may play only a secondary role in determining use rates. For example, in the Netherlands, where marijuana is sold openly in the famous "coffee shops," 12 percent of young adults age 15-24 reported using marijuana during 2005, as compared with 24 percent in neighboring France, where marijuana is an arrestable offense, according to data compiled by the European Monitoring Center for Drugs and Drug Addiction.In the United States, where police make nearly 800,000 marijuana arrests each year, young adults age 18-25 in the 2004-2005 survey year reported past-year marijuana use at the rate of 27.9 percent.

 

[RM918]

What if it's subsidized somehow in a roundabout way? I'm of the mind that some of the more benign substances should be legalized but the extremely addictive substances leaves me at a pause. Take for example the incredible reception to alcohol. Color me as skeptical.

Whatever the case, no matter the conception, I don't see how you have the right to tell someone else what they can do to themselves, in an act that harms only themselves. Period.

 

[Elwar]

Beck takes the anti-libertarian argument of "If we get rid of the policies overnight, bad things will happen."

FDR did not say "Pass this Income Tax amendment so that we can tax everyone at 30%-40% along with about 100,000 pages of tax code that rewards some and punishes others based on lobbyist influence."

I'd also like to point out...drug dealers do not ask for ID.

 

[AuH20]

Whatever the case, no matter the conception, I don't see how you have the right to tell someone else what they can do to themselves, in an act that harms only themselves. Period.

I agree. However, do you think that the emergency rooms that you and I pay for, are going to shun them on this ideological basis? It's quite the dilemma. Yes, people should retain their freedoms, but when their freedoms infringe upon mine at the long end of the curve, I start to take notice. I wish we could live in a pure libertarian environment where every individual is responsible for his/her actions, but unfortunately that's not the case.

 

[Mini-Me]

I agree. However, do you think that the emergency rooms that you and I pay for, are going to shun them on this ideological basis? It's quite the dilemma. Yes, people should retain their freedoms, but when their freedoms infringe upon mine at the long end of the curve, I start to take notice. I wish we could live in a pure libertarian environment where every individual is responsible for his/her actions, but unfortunately that's not the case.

The more statist protections you put in place to help prevent a socialist system from being "abused," the bigger and more complex you're making the system itself, and the longer it will take to dismantle.

If you disagree, why limit your disagreement to drugs? Do you support all manner of government intrusions into everyone's life, like making sure you exercise, eat only allowed foods, brush and floss twice a day (or else), etc., just so you don't have to subsidize someone else's bad habits? This is what government wants, and it's an even greater evil than being forced to subsidize people. Total control over everyone's life is their goal, and implementing a socialist system is a means to this end and convenient excuse for grabbing that kind of power. I know you reject socialism in general, but I would suggest rejecting the tyranny that "supports" the system (and is actually a goal of the system) in the meantime as well.

 

[dannno]

What if it's subsidized somehow in a roundabout way? I'm of the mind that some of the more benign substances should be legalized but the extremely addictive substances leaves me at a pause. Take for example the incredible reception to alcohol. Color me as skeptical.

There are plenty of dangerous things to be addicted to that are not illegal drugs that also cause you to do stupid things. Like alcohol. Prescription pills. OTC pills. Even some foods are really unhealthy and addictive..

But the point is, that people will always be getting wasted. Making drugs legal isn't going to lead more people to get wasted more often, it will just shift some of their habits away from alcohol and prescription pills.. but the real benefit will come with the lack of crime due to drugs.. Even drug users will be able to afford drugs and won't have to rob people.

As far as hospitalization, legalizing drugs will lead to more pure drugs with more standard dosages and there will be less lethal overdoses.

 

[AuH20]

but the real benefit will come with the lack of crime due to drugs.. Even drug users will be able to afford drugs and won't have to rob people.

I agree with that point. It would be extremely tantalizing to stick it to the criminals and the cartels.

 

[RM918]

I agree. However, do you think that the emergency rooms that you and I pay for, are going to shun them on this ideological basis? It's quite the dilemma. Yes, people should retain their freedoms, but when their freedoms infringe upon mine at the long end of the curve, I start to take notice. I wish we could live in a pure libertarian environment where every individual is responsible for his/her actions, but unfortunately that's not the case.

I still think we'd be far better off, not even mentioning the money saved by ending the drug war.

 

[Elwar]

I agree. However, do you think that the emergency rooms that you and I pay for, are going to shun them on this ideological basis? It's quite the dilemma.

Hmm...I've never thought about that...I certainly don't want to have to pay for anyone else's emergency visits. I guess it's time to start outlawing a lot of things.

Jungle Gyms, bicycles, cars, roads, housework, lawn care, hammers, sugary food, fatty food, unregulated exercise practices, balls, stairways, sharp objects, repetitive activities, anything stressful, sun exposure, hard objects...

I guess the only way for us to not have to pay for people's emergency room visits is to outlaw a lot of things...

Best way to fix a bad law is with more laws...worked for the Income Tax...

 

[Austrian Econ Disciple]

Hmm...I've never thought about that...I certainly don't want to have to pay for anyone else's emergency visits. I guess it's time to start outlawing a lot of things.

Jungle Gyms, bicycles, cars, roads, housework, lawn care, hammers, sugary food, fatty food, unregulated exercise practices, balls, stairways, sharp objects, repetitive activities, anything stressful, sun exposure, hard objects...

I guess the only way for us to not have to pay for people's emergency room visits is to outlaw a lot of things...

Best way to fix a bad law is with more laws...worked for the Income Tax...

Hey now! He also never has to pay for the Prisons that house these people. Nope. Don't have to pay for their food, housing, probation, the millions of unneeded and unwanted officers, the CIA peddling drugs, the millions involved with drug gangs, etc. No. We want more Capones. We want more gangs. We want more violent behavior.

I never understood how people cannot look at the big picture. They always try to look at things through a microscopic lens....

And thats just the utilitarian arguement, which isn't my main thrust. My main arguement is Natural Law! No-one has the right to tell me what substance I can or cannot put into my body.

 

[AuH20]

Hmm...I've never thought about that...I certainly don't want to have to pay for anyone else's emergency visits. I guess it's time to start outlawing a lot of things.

Jungle Gyms, bicycles, cars, roads, housework, lawn care, hammers, sugary food, fatty food, unregulated exercise practices, balls, stairways, sharp objects, repetitive activities, anything stressful, sun exposure, hard objects...

I guess the only way for us to not have to pay for people's emergency room visits is to outlaw a lot of things...

Best way to fix a bad law is with more laws...worked for the Income Tax...

Elwar, but we're talking about a highly addictive substance like heroin, that can entrap a person who's more genetically susceptible to it's chemical composition. It creates a nearly unconquerable physical and psychological dependence, even in first-time users. So let's try not to compare it to those objects you listed above. It's on another level which eclipses fatty foods and cars without seat belts.

 

[Austrian Econ Disciple]

Elwar, but we're talking about a highly addictive substance like heroin, that can entrap a person who's more genetically susceptible to it's chemical composition. It creates a strong physical and psychological dependence, even in first-time users. So let's try not to compare it to those objects you listed above. It's on another level which trancends fatty foods and cars without seat belts.

I do not understand how you are trying to rationalize tyranny. Yes, you are a just and benevolent, aid-seeking, tyrant. From what authority do you have, to tell me what substances I can or cannot put into my body.

 

[AuH20]

I do not understand how you are trying to rationalize tyranny. Yes, you are a just and benevolent, aid-seeking, tyrant. From what authority do you have, to tell me what substances I can or cannot put into my body.

Let me reitrate that I'm not a tyrant. You could mutiliate yourself and set yourself on fire, & I wouldn't lift a finger. However, given the unfavorable condition of the state we live in, heroin use throughout the population would still indirectly erode my liberties. If you want to eliminate all drug laws, you have to eliminate aspects of the public health care net as well. At least an-caps are responsible and intellectually honest enough to follow through on these measures as opposed to progressives.

 

[ravedown]

i am always annoyed when i hear someone say-"lets legalize drugs so we can tax the shit out of it" i hear this on talk radio and from people i know all the time-i always reply, lets legalize drugs so they will cut taxes....then i have to go on to explain to the confused person how this works.
where did people get this ridiculous notion about taxing drugs?