My name is Brick-in-the-Wall and I was a Neo-Con

[BuddyRey]

I feel like a conservative when I am among libertarians and like a libertarian when I am among conservatives.

Explain that!

Maybe you're still somewhere between the two. There's nothing wrong with that. I felt the same way during my first months here, except that I was stuck in a murky middle-ground between libertarianism and liberalism.

 

[BuddyRey]

Morning bump!

 

[Sola_Fide]

I feel like a conservative when I am among libertarians and like a libertarian when I am among conservatives.

Explain that!

Oh yeah. I have that feeling too.

 

[libertarian4321]

Going into 2009 I was a Neo-Con Christian struggling with myself and my religion. Coming out of 2009 I was an Atheist Libertarian Ron Paul supporter.

When I was in HS back in 1980, I was a more "mainstream" Republican- a big supporter of Reagan, militarism, and even some aspects of the "moral majority."

But over time I, too, have evolved into a libertarian.

I also became an atheist. This was one of the few areas where I did not agree with Dr. Paul.

At least until early this year, when I was touched by the noodly appendage of God.

Come into the light, my son, become a Pastafarian and join me in praising the one true God, the Flying Spaghetti Monster!

 

[Hospitaller]

I know the guns argument was to prove a point about drugs but it is kind of in a different class than drugs. I also want to avoid a debate but I will respond anyway. First of all, its people who kill people, not guns. In and of themselves guns do nothing. Knives could be used to kill as well. Gun bans in DC and Chicago are unconstitutional, end of story.

I beleive that if criminals have access to guns when good citizens do not have unrestricted access to guns, the criminals will be more inclined to use those guns. If there is a very high possibility that everyone you walk past on the street has a weapon i gaurantee that criminal minded people would be disuaded (sp?) to use thier weapon.

The wild west where everyone was armed was definately not as wild as people are fooled into beleiving

 

[Revolution9]

When I was in HS back in 1980, I was a more "mainstream" Republican- a big supporter of Reagan, militarism, and even some aspects of the "moral majority."

But over time I, too, have evolved into a libertarian.

I also became an atheist. This was one of the few areas where I did not agree with Dr. Paul.

At least until early this year, when I was touched by the noodly appendage of God.

Come into the light, my son, become a Pastafarian and join me in praising the one true God, the Flying Spaghetti Monster!

Looks like you now have the equivalent of a succubi on your neck now. Enjoy your pastafarianism. I am sure your newfound pal will be enjoying his meal as well.

Rev9

 

[Brick-in-the-Wall]

question, how did your family take it when you told them or they found out you didnt believe in it anymore?

I haven't told them. I know I should but it's easier right now if I didn't. I started to hint at it one time with my mom and she started to flip so I stopped it right then and there and didn't go any further.

I know some people think I'm probably being a coward but my parents have enough to worry about and I really don't want my faith added to the top of that list. I'd rather they live in a blissful ignorance than constantly worrying about and feeling depressed over my religious beliefs.

 

[ConsideringRonPaul]

Ok I'm going to make my responses as terse as possible as there is much to respond to and say.

If I don't respond to something, I either don't see an argument, agree with the poster, or don't even feel an answer merits a response.

As for the "glee" comment, there are actually some comments and reports out there that some in the Bush Administration were eager about going into Iraq very early and right around the time after 9/11.

Even if this were true (I'd need some sources), the way Dr. Paul phrased that was not smart. And besides, if they believed the threat originated in Iraq, then it would make sense they would want to quickly eliminate the threat and provide safety for Americans.

Isn't that some good credit to give to Ron Paul? As I said above, here's a candidate that you're interested in and he's bringing in people you're opposed to.

I feel progressives only support Paul because they dislike the US military and want more liberal drug laws. I'm sorry but it doesn't rev me up to think about this.

Based on the polls it is actually down to Romney and Paul. Gringrich has been shown to be worse of a flip flopper paid lobbyist than Romney could ever dream of. Perry can't win once he opens his mouth. Bachmann is decent on domestic fiscal issues, but has too much of a pro-war stance to be popular right now.

The election is going to come down to the economy. And that's Paul's game.

If you're premise that its down to only Paul and Romney is correct, then I will root for Paul for sure.

I think the non-aggression principle is pretty simple for people of "good moral character" to agree upon; likewise the Golden Rule didn't require Christianity. Your inability to comprehend how a society which acts morally without the constant threat of eternal torment masquerading as "god's love" can sustain itself is not a reason why it actually cannot. It's merely a measure of the immaturity and ignorance of the human race if such measures are required. The founders of this country were very careful not to compel their religious views on others. Many of the atheists and agnostics I have known know have grown up never knowing religion yet are often some of the most careful, logical and caring persons.

I like the ad hominen on my comprehension abilities and condescending quotation marks. Besides that, defining morality without religion is a fruitless endeavor. One can't really be trusted as they might change their views on something's morality from one day to the next, especially when they have no objective source of good from which to draw their ideas. Besides, having a government that promotes Christian moral values is not exactly "constant threat of eternal torment masquerading as "god's love"". And to address your quote: "It's merely a measure of the immaturity and ignorance of the human race if such measures are required.", I'll quote James Madison, Federalist Papers 51: "If men were angels, no government would be necessary." Humans are immature and imperfect and do need government; and one that promotes truth is not one I'm opposed to.

So don't believe it. What difference does it make what the truth is when the 9/11 Commission Report was an obvious whitewash? Tell me which senior officials responsible for the severe intelligence lapse that resulted in the possibility of a 9/11 have been fired or even officially reprimanded? Oh yeah, they weren't. Many of them were promoted. Of course, this is true of both Republican and Democratic administrations: Eric Holder went from being involved in the cover-up at Oklahoma City to becoming Obama's Attorney General and being responsible for more covert, anti-American operations like Fast and Furious. If you want people to be a little more settled about 9/11, a Paul administration would seek a new 9/11 investigation and you can be assured the results would not be tainted by corruption from the start.

Sure I'd be down for another investigation, don't really think it would uncover that much if anything new. But I doubt all the truthers would be satisfied.

Logically, there is a contradiction. Maybe it will force you to confront your worldview. We all can have fundamental disagreements on certain issues and still be united in the principles of liberty. We support Ron Paul not because we necessarily agree with everything he says or with each other; we support Ron Paul because he represents liberty, unquestionable integrity and the American Way that we learned about in school and yet was lost somewhere in the translation to life in a cruel world. Dr. Paul warms the cool, jaded hearts of the disenchanted and disenfranchised regardless of who we are or who we were.

Most of the progressives that support what you might call "liberty" are really supporting anarchy. I'm obviously not a libertarian but that's mainly because of the group's social liberalism. A government which tries to restrain deadly drug usage, like heroin will stop more people from using it for example. I'll take a sacrifice in my "liberty" to allow the government (Remember I'm talking state government here) to restrict the ability of kids in my neighborhood to get drugs. I know some obviously still will, but much less will be able to or eager to do so when there are strict government penalties. Also I do agree with you that Paul has the most integrity and consistency of any candidate. And don't think I'm against liberty, because I'm not. When I read Patrick Henry's speech to the Virginia COnvention, it sends shivers down my spine. Yet, I just don't castrate the word in a way that attempts to legitimize actions that are repugnant to any moral person's sensibilities.

Alright, here's the thing. At some point in your life you will have to make a choice: Either you own yourself and the fruits of your labor or the government does. The liberal/progressive perspective presumes the latter. The libertarian/conservative philosophy traditionally supports the former. Those who have not had to deal with the police state or had government force come down against them are far more likely to believe that government is, at its root, benevolent and at times helpful. Those who have been on the wrong side of a disagreement with the state and found themselves a victim of its "benevolence" recognize that the persons in government are no smarter than you are, in fact typically much less so and they have a monopoly on force.

I don't want to do cocaine or heroin. Heck, I hardly ever drink. However, I like knowing that if I ever wanted to do those things or others, that I could. Heroin used to come in a little bottle from Bayer and what do you think the Coca in Coca-Cola was? Abuse happens. Throwing someone in a concrete box because he did something harmful to himself is an immoral and unconstitutional act. I can't even get cold medicine now without having to sign a form for the Feds to review. Red-light cameras and roadside searches are becoming the norm now. When you allow government to take a little of your freedom, it will continue to creep and usurp incrementally until nothing is left.

I moved to Las Vegas mainly because it places me in an early caucus state where perhaps I can have an impact on the coming Presidential race. Living here supports the philosophy of liberty. You can drink at all hours of the day and all night, gamble all you want, smoke almost anywhere and pretty much anything is available here if you have the money. Yet somehow, society doesn't collapse here. Not even with three quarters of a million visitors each week from all over the world. Sure, there are stone drunks and bankruptcies and probably lung cancer as well. It's not a perfect place. But the world doesn't end from its existence. There are no red light cameras here and people routinely drive through the first second of a red light. You know what? People deal with it. It works better than statist New Jersey does. More freedom couldn't do any worse here, only better.

So the best argument against worrying about Federal drug legalization (which most states have plenty of laws against anyway) is that it's extremely immoral, Prohibition is extremely unconstitutional (alcohol required both a Constitutional amendment and the Volstead Act) and it doesn't work. The Drug War is a total and abject failure, much like the War on Poverty and the War on Terror and all other wars on abstractions. Call them what they really are: The War on You. When you understand all of these things, there will be no other choice but to support Ron Paul and those like him.

Throwing someone in jail is supposed to discourage an action. There are no positives that can come from deadly drug use, except creating citizens addicted to it and draining our communities of their vitality, especially poor communities. I would not take comfort in knowing the STATE government didn't want people essentially killing themselves. Once again I agree that the Feds shouldn't be involved, especially with that cold medicine. Society would not end if there were more restrictions on harmful actions in place, however, there are now many more of the negative consequences you mentioned because of a lack of them. Think of how few people would want to raise a family in Las Vegas. It's not the ideal society in my book or in many others. As for red light cameras, there's probably more accidents because of them.

So the best argument against worrying about Federal drug legalization (which most states have plenty of laws against anyway) is that it's extremely immoral, Prohibition is extremely unconstitutional (alcohol required both a Constitutional amendment and the Volstead Act) and it doesn't work. The Drug War is a total and abject failure, much like the War on Poverty and the War on Terror and all other wars on abstractions. Call them what they really are: The War on You. When you understand all of these things, there will be no other choice but to support Ron Paul and those like him.

First I want to thank you for the post, it was very informative. Don't take any of my attacks as personal. Secondly, I am very close to supporting Ron Paul, I just don't think I could ever be a libertarian. I'd agree with you that the war on poverty has been a complete failure, but I'll disagree on the other two. The war on drugs has kept millions off deadly substances and there hasn't been another major terror attack since the war on terror began (yea there have been some minor ones but unless you have a full-out police state, crime can't be totally stopped).

Atheists disagree with each other just as much as people who believe in some god disagree with each other. Plenty of religious people have incredibly divergent views on what is moral and what is not (see any hot topic issue, like state executions or war).

Heck, I'm vegan, and literally wouldn't hurt a fly. Do I judge the elderly Christian lady across the street as she sprays pesticides everywhere? No. I notice, but I don't judge. So please don't try to argue your moral compass is somehow superior to mine simply because you read it out of a book.

PS - You already live in a society of people where 'goodness' is defined by the person. Each and every one of us does that, regardless of what religion we do or do not claim.

Goodness is defined by me and millions of other Christians as what God defines goodness as; and what a Christian worldview and philosophy define as good for issues God doesn't directly deal with. That is where Christian disagreement comes from (and its very minimal amongst conservative believers, liberal Christains don't even trust the Bible so I'm leaving them out). The disagreements are over application not morality or belief. Your post reeks of moral relativism; of course atheists disagree with one another, there is no objective source for their morality. It's literally all for the person with you guys. There's technically no way you can tell me murder is wrong unless you impose your morality of respecting other people's liberty on me (just an extreme example here, no hard feelings).

That's not logic, that's irrationality. The left/right paradigm is an illusion fostered upon us by the establishment. You should be willing to listen to the ideas of a man (say, Ron Paul) and judge them on their own merit, not based on your pre-established judgement of others that agree with him. It's irrational to dismiss ideas out of hand simply because someone you disagree with on some issues likes an idea.

Since you have such a hard time understanding what I'm saying, I'll give you an analogy. Say a new restaurant opens down the street from you. There are already a lot of Italian restaurants that you kinda like on the street but are getting sick of. There's also a lot of Greek restaurants that you hate across the street. Every thing served at the Greek restaurant is something you are opposed to. So when you go to check out the new place, you see a lot of the Italians, but also a lot of the greeks. The Italians you feel comfortable eating with but the Greeks you cannot stand. They even have started to buy similar food as you but they're rationale for changing is totally repugnant. They make you sick. Yet they claim, you should be happy this restaurant attracts us. Its good business. But for you, they are obnoxious, smelly, and insane. In a nutshell that's how I feel, with, if you hadn't figured it out, Italians as Republicans, Greeks as Democrats, and the new restaurant as Ron Paul.

Tricked? Nonsense. First off, are people tricked into trying drugs now? Let's see - they're taboo, so have that going for them. Often, their friends are telling them it's worth trying. Since it's black market, there is no label, and no warning label. If legalized, the drug would be labeled and have full warnings. Which is trickery? The truth? Or keeping it black market?

The truth will set you free. I am not 'tricked' into trying things. I decide to try them, or don't decide to.

Legalizing drugs would not cut down consumption, it would most likely skyrocket. Labels don't stop the many millions of people from smoking or drinking (And don;t say, well they're legal so all other drugs should be too, that would only make the situation worse, why would someone want that.) And people will be tricked by friends regardless of its legality. People addicted to drugs want otther people addicted for comfort, they don;t want to be alone in their troubles. Legalizing drugs would make getting the drugs easier, and plus itd be very easy to take them out of their store containers and still trick friends.

First off, I disagree with some of your assertions, but let's start with the driving one. If true, then... well, heck, don't we already have reckless driving laws on the books? Yep. And DWI laws. And driving while drinking is far more dangerous than driving while high.

But more importantly, who cares if it's harmless or not? Liquor is harmful, but we all know how well Prohibition worked out. The gov't can not protect someone from themselves. Otherwise it will start banning drugs, liquor, guns, driving, and anything else that can harm themselves or others.

The only choice is liberty.

Saying its more dangerous to drive drunk than high is just an opinion; in any regard both are dangerous. Marijuana's lingering effects can often last for days if not weeks though which makes it more dangerous. The government can promote what is right (namely not using drugs) but no technically it can;t protect someone from themselves. And also owning a gun in and of itself is not dangerous. A gun can mistakenly be used for bad purposes but it is mostly for self-defense, hunting, etc. Drugs on the other hand have one purpose: for people to get high. And yes alcohol is dangerous, but why make the problem worse and legalize more dangerous things.

Um. Your logic is failing. A libertarian that supports the right of others to do what they want can still advise against it. I don't advocate drug use. I don't do drugs. But that doesn't mean I wouldn't tell you not to.

And you know what? That doesn't just apply to 'black market' drugs. I'm also against the overwhelming number of 'legal' drugs that people take (and often force their children to take) for every ailment.

Umm my logic isn't failing, the Bush Rush comment was in reply to another person's comment. I wasn't just throwing them out there. My point was that people who have abused substances in the past have the experience with how bad/deadly they are. Yes libertarians don't believe intelling anyone what to do. I understand that. Someone that makes a mistake and becomes addicted to heroin though would probably be wishing you had.

I have no idea what you mean by 'pension'. But think about the absurdity of your final sentence: because we have a synthetic chemical that profits the drug companies, we don't need the natural plant that anyone can grow. I hope that sounds as absurd to you as it does to me.

My point was that cancer patients don;t need to smoke smoke weed and get high when there is already something out there that will help alleviate their pain without allowing kids to come in complain of ailment X and get smokeable marijuana.

Thanks for the posting btw, agree with you on some points, can't on others. I will continue this response to the other posters in a bit.

Last thing: I'm not here to get in an argument about the war on drugs, I have my opinions and they're not changing unless someone somehow provides me with very convincing evidence; I was more responding to what others have said. Going back to my original post, my main point is that I am not in my element with socially liberal libertarians and I was a bit concerned that so many were ardent supporters of a man I am considering supporting for president. I know "liberty unites people" but still I was and still am unsettled.

 

[libertarian4321]

Enjoy your pastafarianism. I am sure your newfound pal will be enjoying his meal as well.

Rev9

I'm not sure what you mean. Are you implying that my God, the one true God, the FSM, is nothing but an imaginary friend?

Blaspheme!

 

[affa]

wasn't done yet, sorry.

 

[affa]

I feel progressives only support Paul because they dislike the US military and want more liberal drug laws. I'm sorry but it doesn't rev me up to think about this.

With all due respect, I don't think you are the best judge of why progressives support Ron Paul. That's as condescending a view as saying, for example, that the reason someone supports Santorum is because they're homophobic. Except here, you're slamming an entire segment of Ron Paul's actual supporters, dismissing them out of hand because of your own preconceptions about them. Which are incorrect, by the way. Progressives that have switched to Ron Paul have done it for the same reason Neocons, etc, have switched to Ron Paul -- they woke up to the smell of liberty. Period. Anti-war might have gotten them to look at him, or his stance on the drug war, or the Patriot Act, or whatever... but once you start watching Ron Paul speak, it's ridiculous to be as dismissive as you are being.

Besides that, defining morality without religion is a fruitless endeavor. One can't really be trusted as they might change their views on something's morality from one day to the next, especially when they have no objective source of good from which to draw their ideas.

Absurd. I am an atheist. I believe murder is wrong. I believe rape is wrong. I believe factory farming is wrong. Slavery. Taxation. And on and on.
I don't need your god to make these calculations on my own. I just need my head. And ultimately, so did you, since at some point you decided to believe in your god... and thus decided to take on the moral stances you have.
This idea that atheists have no moral rock is downright absurd, and once again shows you have absolutely no understanding of those you seek to slander with your condescension. Meanwhile, you act as if all Christians share the same faith, and same morality, when that is demonstrably false.

Most of the progressives that support what you might call "liberty" are really supporting anarchy.

It's really clear to me you have no understanding of progressives, liberty, or anarchism.

I'm obviously not a libertarian but that's mainly because of the group's social liberalism. A government which tries to restrain deadly drug usage, like heroin will stop more people from using it for example. I'll take a sacrifice in my "liberty" to allow the government (Remember I'm talking state government here) to restrict the ability of kids in my neighborhood to get drugs. I know some obviously still will, but much less will be able to or eager to do so when there are strict government penalties.

You confuse two issues. Just because I don't criminalize weed, or tobacco, or liquor doesn't mean I can't warn against it. And this idea that people will be 'less eager' due to gov't penalties is really just conjecture, and silly conjecture at that. Drugs are easy to get. Simple. For someone underage, it's easier to get drugs than liquor in most cases. And that's not even getting into this idea that you think the government needs to protect people from themselves.

Also I do agree with you that Paul has the most integrity and consistency of any candidate. And don't think I'm against liberty, because I'm not.

Yes, you are, in many cases. Don't worry, give it time to sink in. As the message of liberty spreads through your system, it will cure you of your authoritarian penchants.

When I read Patrick Henry's speech to the Virginia COnvention, it sends shivers down my spine. Yet, I just don't castrate the word in a way that attempts to legitimize actions that are repugnant to any moral person's sensibilities.

Stop elevating yourself. Just because someone disagrees with you doesn't not make them immoral. 'Any moral person's sensibilities' is the most offensive term you've used yet - as if you somehow have a monopoly on what is wrong and right and you, alone, judge the world... and anyone who disagrees with you is neither moral nor sensible.

You seek to impose your moral views on others through force. That is not liberty, no matter how you cut it.

Throwing someone in jail is supposed to discourage an action.

'supposed to' being the key phrase there.

There are no positives that can come from deadly drug use, except creating citizens addicted to it and draining our communities of their vitality, especially poor communities.

Yet criminalizing drugs does not stop drug use, and in fact, creates a black market. It also prevents any level of, say, 'purity checks' for drugs, so that those addicted can make sure they're not getting strychnine with their drug. It also prevents people who want help from going for help, since they fear arrest.

Meanwhile, all the legal over-the-counter 'deadly drugs' go one being sold, to the profit of big pharm.

I would not take comfort in knowing the STATE government didn't want people essentially killing themselves.

Just because liquor is legal does not mean the state condones drinking. It just means they don't ban it outright.

Society would not end if there were more restrictions on harmful actions in place, however, there are now many more of the negative consequences you mentioned because of a lack of them.

You do not love liberty yet - or at least, you do not fully understand it. This statement of yours is the most anti-liberty sentiment I've heard in quite some time. Who defines harmful? You? Who defines moral? You? So you are a defender of liberty, as long as that liberty takes the form of things you agree with.

Think of how few people would want to raise a family in Las Vegas.

What the?

It's not the ideal society in my book or in many others.

I'd much rather live in Vegas than the society it sounds like you'd create. At least Vegas would let me be me.

First I want to thank you for the post, it was very informative. Don't take any of my attacks as personal. Secondly, I am very close to supporting Ron Paul, I just don't think I could ever be a libertarian. I'd agree with you that the war on poverty has been a complete failure, but I'll disagree on the other two. The war on drugs has kept millions off deadly substances and there hasn't been another major terror attack since the war on terror began (yea there have been some minor ones but unless you have a full-out police state, crime can't be totally stopped).

Show me ANY substantial proof that the war on drugs has kept 'millions' off of drugs. If anything, we have a drug addicted society today. Over the counter, included. We have a massive problem with gangs and cartels that profit off drugs (not dissimilar from the rise of organized crime during Prohibition).

Our society uses drugs far more now, than before the war on drugs began. Just because you want to believe the propaganda, does not make it true.

Goodness is defined by me and millions of other Christians as what God defines goodness as; and what a Christian worldview and philosophy define as good for issues God doesn't directly deal with.

So I can't define 'good' because I'm not Christian? You guys have a monopoly on that? 'Good' for you.

It's literally all for the person with you guys. There's technically no way you can tell me murder is wrong unless you impose your morality of respecting other people's liberty on me (just an extreme example here, no hard feelings).

What? You impose your views on me, but then say if i say 'murder is wrong' i'm imposing my views on you? Seriously? That's all you've got?

Since you have such a hard time understanding what I'm saying, I'll give you an analogy. Say a new restaurant opens down the street from you. There are already a lot of Italian restaurants that you kinda like on the street but are getting sick of. There's also a lot of Greek restaurants that you hate across the street. Every thing served at the Greek restaurant is something you are opposed to. So when you go to check out the new place, you see a lot of the Italians, but also a lot of the greeks. The Italians you feel comfortable eating with but the Greeks you cannot stand. They even have started to buy similar food as you but they're rationale for changing is totally repugnant. They make you sick. Yet they claim, you should be happy this restaurant attracts us. Its good business. But for you, they are obnoxious, smelly, and insane. In a nutshell that's how I feel, with, if you hadn't figured it out, Italians as Republicans, Greeks as Democrats, and the new restaurant as Ron Paul.

I'm sorry, I couldn't get through that analogy. Far too racist in origin for my taste buds. Any argument which requires you to say I think an entire ethnicity of people is 'obnoxious, smelly, and insane' is a failed argument.

Legalizing drugs would not cut down consumption, it would most likely skyrocket. Labels don't stop the many millions of people from smoking or drinking (And don;t say, well they're legal so all other drugs should be too, that would only make the situation worse, why would someone want that.) And people will be tricked by friends regardless of its legality. People addicted to drugs want otther people addicted for comfort, they don;t want to be alone in their troubles. Legalizing drugs would make getting the drugs easier, and plus itd be very easy to take them out of their store containers and still trick friends.

This is absurd. Anyone 'tricked' by someone changing bottles can still be tricked today. And drugs being illegal doesn't stop anyone from doing them. What's your point again?

Saying its more dangerous to drive drunk than high is just an opinion; in any regard both are dangerous.

Says someone who clearly has absolutely no understanding of what it means to be high, given the fact you think it can cause a car accident days later.

Marijuana's lingering effects can often last for days if not weeks though which makes it more dangerous.

You have no idea what you're talking about.

The government can promote what is right (namely not using drugs) but no technically it can;t protect someone from themselves. And also owning a gun in and of itself is not dangerous. A gun can mistakenly be used for bad purposes but it is mostly for self-defense, hunting, etc. Drugs on the other hand have one purpose: for people to get high. And yes alcohol is dangerous, but why make the problem worse and legalize more dangerous things.

You assume 'getting high' on marijuana is some terrible thing. This is the same argument used during Prohibition - that alcohol caused terrible ills, caused men to cheat, caused men to beat their wives, caused men to gamble. First off, marijuana does NONE of those things, though, it could be argued liquor actually does. Yet even for liquor, we learned the hard way (well, it was obvious for anyone liberty minded) that prohibition does not work.

My point was that people who have abused substances in the past have the experience with how bad/deadly they are.

So? Plenty of ex-drug users support decriminalization, too.

My point was that cancer patients don;t need to smoke smoke weed and get high when there is already something out there that will help alleviate their pain without allowing kids to come in complain of ailment X and get smokeable marijuana.

You really ought to smoke a joint and get back to us - I think you have this completely skewed view of what being 'high' is like. It's nowhere near as serious as even being drunk... it's more like if you just mellowed out a bit, and were relaxed. The effects of liquor on one's being is far more substantial, far more negative, and hurts society far more.

Last thing: I'm not here to get in an argument about the war on drugs, I have my opinions and they're not changing unless someone somehow provides me with very convincing evidence; I was more responding to what others have said. Going back to my original post, my main point is that I am not in my element with socially liberal libertarians and I was a bit concerned that so many were ardent supporters of a man I am considering supporting for president. I know "liberty unites people" but still I was and still am unsettled.

No one can provide you with 'convincing evidence' because you have this view of marijuana in your head that is completely, totally separate from the reality of actually getting high. It's like the tee-totallers who put out pamplets that said one drink of liquor could cause you to beat your wife, or burst into flames (yes, that really was the propaganda).

I know it's a hard road to liberty, but at some point you will hopefully realize that if you need to tell me what I can or can not do, you are not a supporter of liberty, but rather, authoritarianism. If you think the State needs to tell me how to behave, you believe in tyranny. And if you think that the state should do this with the will of [insert diety here] in mind, you believe in religious tyranny. Freedom, and liberty, require trust in your fellow man (and woman) whether you disagree with them or not.

 

[ryanmkeisling]

With all due respect, I don't think you are the best judge of why progressives support Ron Paul. That's as condescending a view as saying, for example, that the reason someone supports Santorum is because they're homophobic. Except here, you're slamming an entire segment of Ron Paul's actual supporters, dismissing them out of hand because of your own preconceptions about them. Which are incorrect, by the way. Progressives that have switched to Ron Paul have done it for the same reason Neocons, etc, have switched to Ron Paul -- they woke up to the smell of liberty. Period. Anti-war might have gotten them to look at him, or his stance on the drug war, or the Patriot Act, or whatever... but once you start watching Ron Paul speak, it's ridiculous to be as dismissive as you are being.



Absurd. I am an atheist. I believe murder is wrong. I believe rape is wrong. I believe factory farming is wrong. Slavery. Taxation. And on and on.
I don't need your god to make these calculations on my own. I just need my head. And ultimately, so did you, since at some point you decided to believe in your god... and thus decided to take on the moral stances you have.
This idea that atheists have no moral rock is downright absurd, and once again shows you have absolutely no understanding of those you seek to slander with your condescension. Meanwhile, you act as if all Christians share the same faith, and same morality, when that is demonstrably false.




It's really clear to me you have no understanding of progressives, liberty, or anarchism.



You confuse two issues. Just because I don't criminalize weed, or tobacco, or liquor doesn't mean I can't warn against it. And this idea that people will be 'less eager' due to gov't penalties is really just conjecture, and silly conjecture at that. Drugs are easy to get. Simple. For someone underage, it's easier to get drugs than liquor in most cases. And that's not even getting into this idea that you think the government needs to protect people from themselves.



Yes, you are, in many cases. Don't worry, give it time to sink in. As the message of liberty spreads through your system, it will cure you of your authoritarian penchants.



Stop elevating yourself. Just because someone disagrees with you doesn't not make them immoral. 'Any moral person's sensibilities' is the most offensive term you've used yet - as if you somehow have a monopoly on what is wrong and right and you, alone, judge the world... and anyone who disagrees with you is neither moral nor sensible.

You seek to impose your moral views on others through force. That is not liberty, no matter how you cut it.



'supposed to' being the key phrase there.



Yet criminalizing drugs does not stop drug use, and in fact, creates a black market. It also prevents any level of, say, 'purity checks' for drugs, so that those addicted can make sure they're not getting strychnine with their drug. It also prevents people who want help from going for help, since they fear arrest.

Meanwhile, all the legal over-the-counter 'deadly drugs' go one being sold, to the profit of big pharm.



Just because liquor is legal does not mean the state condones drinking. It just means they don't ban it outright.



You do not love liberty yet - or at least, you do not fully understand it. This statement of yours is the most anti-liberty sentiment I've heard in quite some time. Who defines harmful? You? Who defines moral? You? So you are a defender of liberty, as long as that liberty takes the form of things you agree with.



What the?



I'd much rather live in Vegas than the society it sounds like you'd create. At least Vegas would let me be me.



Show me ANY substantial proof that the war on drugs has kept 'millions' off of drugs. If anything, we have a drug addicted society today. Over the counter, included. We have a massive problem with gangs and cartels that profit off drugs (not dissimilar from the rise of organized crime during Prohibition).

Our society uses drugs far more now, than before the war on drugs began. Just because you want to believe the propaganda, does not make it true.



So I can't define 'good' because I'm not Christian? You guys have a monopoly on that? 'Good' for you.



What? You impose your views on me, but then say if i say 'murder is wrong' i'm imposing my views on you? Seriously? That's all you've got?



I'm sorry, I couldn't get through that analogy. Far too racist in origin for my taste buds. Any argument which requires you to say I think an entire ethnicity of people is 'obnoxious, smelly, and insane' is a failed argument.



This is absurd. Anyone 'tricked' by someone changing bottles can still be tricked today. And drugs being illegal doesn't stop anyone from doing them. What's your point again?



Says someone who clearly has absolutely no understanding of what it means to be high, given the fact you think it can cause a car accident days later.



You have no idea what you're talking about.



You assume 'getting high' on marijuana is some terrible thing. This is the same argument used during Prohibition - that alcohol caused terrible ills, caused men to cheat, caused men to beat their wives, caused men to gamble. First off, marijuana does NONE of those things, though, it could be argued liquor actually does. Yet even for liquor, we learned the hard way (well, it was obvious for anyone liberty minded) that prohibition does not work.



So? Plenty of ex-drug users support decriminalization, too.



You really ought to smoke a joint and get back to us - I think you have this completely skewed view of what being 'high' is like. It's nowhere near as serious as even being drunk... it's more like if you just mellowed out a bit, and were relaxed. The effects of liquor on one's being is far more substantial, far more negative, and hurts society far more.



No one can provide you with 'convincing evidence' because you have this view of marijuana in your head that is completely, totally separate from the reality of actually getting high. It's like the tee-totallers who put out pamplets that said one drink of liquor could cause you to beat your wife, or burst into flames (yes, that really was the propaganda).

I know it's a hard road to liberty, but at some point you will hopefully realize that if you need to tell me what I can or can not do, you are not a supporter of liberty, but rather, authoritarianism. If you think the State needs to tell me how to behave, you believe in tyranny. And if you think that the state should do this with the will of [insert diety here] in mind, you believe in religious tyranny. Freedom, and liberty, require trust in your fellow man (and woman) whether you disagree with them or not.

This^^ + rep for a great post.

Consideringronpaul keeps claiming they cannot live in a society with people that don't fit into their definition of certain things yet they are all around you and you are far outnumbered by them?

 

[affa]

This^^ + rep for a great post.

Consideringronpaul keeps claiming they cannot live in a society with people that don't fit into their definition of certain things yet they are all around you and you are far outnumbered by them?

thank you, and no worries. the seed of liberty is planted. it will grow, with time. it always does.

 

[Rebel4Liberty]

Pot smokers were all Democrats as well. The Republicans were right here because pot will cause you to be stupid and causes people to do bad things. It was right to arrest these people and do everything possible to stop them from smoking because if we didn't stop them, more people would smoke, move on to harder drugs, go crazy, and put severe danger onto our families and communities.

I don't post very much, just lurk and read, but I would say I COULD have been exactly like you BIW. I came from a hard leaning right-wing family of old money. It was ingrained in my head, go to school and get good grades as society requires me to. The school system has never fit with my perception, but what really started the ball rolling with the incessant D.A.R.E presentations and the "just say NO" about ALL DRUGS.

There was no differentiation, just the "marijuana gate way" would lead to the destruction of your life. I have to hand it to them, as I was deathly afraid and terrorized of all drugs and see them as evil. My mother smoked pot when I wasn't around and I would feel scared of her doing it when I caught her. The govt had me successfully INDOCTRINATED to their ideals, but come around 15-16 I got into surfing, and long with that came the infamous peer-pressure scenario and experimentation moment of smoking pot. It wasn't about "peer-pressure" as the scape goat, it was finding out what happens.

The truth led to the breaking of ALL INDOCTRINATION instilled in me. I'm wide awake at 16, I feel alone and see what have been taught has been nothing but a LIE. You DO NOT go back once its broken, everything changes from hence forth. I couldn't understand "who am I harming smoking this" "how am I going to do harm to society using this" and I concluded that I am NOT being responsible, and if there is harm, then it is only MYSELF. It caused me to REVOLT against the whole pattern and I could see that I was being "trained" to work for the system, a system I detested. I could have done very well, made 3.5 grade average and applied myself for "college", but I didn't TRUST what I was being taught and I said NO.

I love how society equates education to attendance in a school/college, yet the late and great Einstein says "Education is what remains after one has forgotten everything he learned in school" and true to this quote I have indeed learned more than I ever did inside school. The advent of the internet has led me to triple the amount otherwise. I come off as very college educated though never having step foot inside one. I have been smoking 16 years now and I have close to an IQ of 100.

So I could have been another right wing drone programmed to work for the system, but discovering the real truth of cannabis,my awareness, and critical thinking which would eventually lead my research to the root of everything coming full circle with the CENTRAL BANKING issue and the ROTHSCHILD dynasty! KNOWING the real truth as opposed to what you are made to believe is liberating. I feel happier each day to know this establishment is crumbling and I have long awaited this mass awakening. Maybe 2012 is about shattering the illusion humanity has lived under than "doom" and "disaster"

 

[ryanmkeisling]

I don't post very much, just lurk and read, but I would say I COULD have been exactly like you BIW. I came from a hard leaning right-wing family of old money. It was ingrained in my head, go to school and get good grades as society requires me to. The school system has never fit with my perception, but what really started the ball rolling with the incessant D.A.R.E presentations and the "just say NO" about ALL DRUGS.

There was no differentiation, just the "marijuana gate way" would lead to the destruction of your life. I have to hand it to them, as I was deathly afraid and terrorized of all drugs and see them as evil. My mother smoked pot when I wasn't around and I would feel scared of her doing it when I caught her. The govt had me successfully INDOCTRINATED to their ideals, but come around 15-16 I got into surfing, and long with that came the infamous peer-pressure scenario and experimentation moment of smoking pot. It wasn't about "peer-pressure" as the scape goat, it was finding out what happens.

The truth led to the breaking of ALL INDOCTRINATION instilled in me. I'm wide awake at 16, I feel alone and see what have been taught has been nothing but a LIE. You DO NOT go back once its broken, everything changes from hence forth. I couldn't understand "who am I harming smoking this" "how am I going to do harm to society using this" and I concluded that I am NOT being responsible, and if there is harm, then it is only MYSELF. It caused me to REVOLT against the whole pattern and I could see that I was being "trained" to work for the system, a system I detested. I could have done very well, made 3.5 grade average and applied myself for "college", but I didn't TRUST what I was being taught and I said NO.

I love how society equates education to attendance in a school/college, yet the late and great Einstein says "Education is what remains after one has forgotten everything he learned in school" and true to this quote I have indeed learned more than I ever did inside school. The advent of the internet has led me to triple the amount otherwise. I come off as very college educated though never having step foot inside one. I have been smoking 16 years now and I have close to an IQ of 100.

So I could have been another right wing drone programmed to work for the system, but discovering the real truth of cannabis,my awareness, and critical thinking which would eventually lead my research to the root of everything coming full circle with the CENTRAL BANKING issue and the ROTHSCHILD dynasty! KNOWING the real truth as opposed to what you are made to believe is liberating. I feel happier each day to know this establishment is crumbling and I have long awaited this mass awakening. Maybe 2012 is about shattering the illusion humanity has lived under than "doom" and "disaster"

These are solid realizations, hold onto them.

 

[Rebel4Liberty]

Not only do I hold on to them, I stand true to conviction. That is why I love RP, true to conviction no matter what. We would have a better society if more could stand to their convictions, but sadly that might be too idealistic...

 

[Brick-in-the-Wall]

 

[Brick-in-the-Wall]

I'm bumping this to see if anybody new to the board has made the same journey I made. That and I want to see if we can get more poll results. I think it's interesting to see the backgrounds of our posters.

 

[sirachman]

removed

 

[roderik]

TL;DR - I was a Right-Wing Neo-Con and became a borderline Anarchist Classic-Liberal Libertarian Ron Paul nut.
George Carlin and Bill Hicks helped guide me to Ron Paul.

I'm thrilled you name those two, because the guided me here as well. Kudos!