My THREE QUESTION test for Chuck Baldwin.

[Deborah K]

So you think if the government made ice cream illegal and arrested a thousand people in your state, broke up their families, and ruined their careers the Federal government should not get involved?

**sigh** ice cream and heroin are not comparable. Look, I'm coming from a different perspective. My education is in behavioral science with an emphasis on addictive disorders. We are an addicted nation. Granted the war on drugs has been useless, but legalizing addiction (dope) isn't going to make things any better. If you think so, then go have a talk with the many mothers whose husbands are shooting up and smoking weed in front of the kids instead of working to pay the bills. Go to hospitals on the poor side of town and ask about the crack addicted babies. Ask anyone who's addicted if they wish they had never started.

Addiction is hurting this country in more ways than you may know.

You think legalizing dope is going to change all this? I don't want it legalized, but I don't want addicts thrown in prison, only dealers. I think addicts belong in rehab for lengthy periods of time.

As to the casual user, I believe in simply de-criminalizing dope.

 

[humanic]

Do you know a way of contacting someone in his campaign and passing these questions along?

Unfortunately I don't, no. I'm not in the Constitution Party and I haven't been actively campaigning for Baldwin or anything; I just think he would make a good president.

 

[Scribbler de Stebbing]

What part of the Tenth Amendment isn't clear? The federal government doesn't get to decide for the states whether jaywalking, rape or drugs (including ice cream) is legal. If you don't like your state's laws, you can either get them changed there, or move. A federal government big enough to require drug legalization is big enough to criminalize drugs, just as a federal government big enough to ensure abortion is big enough to ban it. Leave it to the states, man.

 

[Menthol Patch]

**sigh** ice cream and heroin are not comparable. Look, I'm coming from a different perspective. My education is in behavioral science with an emphasis on addictive disorders. We are an addicted nation. Granted the war on drugs has been useless, but legalizing addiction (dope) isn't going to make things any better. If you think so, then go have a talk with the many mothers whose husbands are shooting up and smoking weed in front of the kids instead of working to pay the bills. Go to hospitals on the poor side of town and ask about the crack addicted babies. Ask anyone who's addicted if they wish they had never started.

Addiction is hurting this country in more ways than you may know.

You think legalizing dope is going to change all this? I don't want it legalized, but I don't want addicts thrown in prison, only dealers. I think addicts belong in rehab for lengthy periods of time.

As to the casual user, I believe in simply de-criminalizing dope.

You have made your position clear.

You don't believe in the right of people to control what they put into their own body.

The fact is the most important reason drugs should be legalized is NOT because the war on drugs is not working. The most important reason is that everyone has the right to put whatever they want into their own body.

When it comes to freedom ice cream and heroin are EXACTLY the same.

 

[klamath]

The trouble with the OP is his uses too much of what he wants legalized

 

[Menthol Patch]

What part of the Tenth Amendment isn't clear? The federal government doesn't get to decide for the states whether jaywalking, rape or drugs (including ice cream) is legal. If you don't like your state's laws, you can either get them changed there, or move. A federal government big enough to require drug legalization is big enough to criminalize drugs, just as a federal government big enough to ensure abortion is big enough to ban it. Leave it to the states, man.

Obviously you don't care about the Bill of Rights.

I guess you don't want the Federal Government to enforce freedom of speech, the right to bare arms, etc.

When your state government throws you in prison for speaking about your favorite topic that just happens to be illegal I hope you don't mind that the federal government won't get involved.

 

[Menthol Patch]

The trouble with the OP is his uses too much of what he want legalized

Actually, I don't use drugs. I do drink coffee though.

Also, I have never been with a prostitute and I'm not sexually active.

However, I would fight to defend someone's right to use whatever drug they choose and to have sex ten times a day with prostitutes if they wanted to do so.

 

[Deborah K]

You have made your position clear.

You don't believe in the right of people to control what they put into their own body.

The fact is the most important reason drugs should be legalized is NOT because the war on drugs is not working. The most important reason is that everyone has the right to put whatever they want into their own body.

When it comes to freedom ice cream and heroin are EXACTLY the same.

I don't agree. Addiction to ice cream won't kill you or hurt your family or society. Sorry if you can't see that. Drug addiction is not only a personal problem, it is a societal problem i.e. if you shoot up and then get in your car and crash, killing my child..... If you need a fix and you don't have the money and you break into my place of business and steal my goods.....you have become society's problem.

Sorry for the slight digression from the OP.

 

[Scribbler de Stebbing]

Obviously you don't care about the Bill of Rights.

I guess you don't want the Federal Government to enforce freedom of speech, the right to bare arms, etc.

When your state government throws you in prison for speaking about your favorite topic that just happens to be illegal I hope you don't mind that the federal government won't get involved.

The Bill of Rights ensured that the FEDERAL government couldn't do those things. Until the Incorporation Doctrine, the Constitution didn't apply to the states. Incorporation Doctrine is debatable.

Even so, if you want a federal government powerful enough to ensure all those things, you'll have to deal with it being big enough to ensure all the things you don't like too. If 51% of the people think there should be no abortion, you'll have to live with that, as opposed to getting the law changed in your state, or moving to the next state over.

 

[Menthol Patch]

I don't agree. Addiction to ice cream won't kill you or hurt your family or society. Sorry if you can't see that. Drug addiction is not only a personal problem, it is a societal problem i.e. if you shoot up and then get in your car and crash, killing my child..... If you need a fix and you don't have the money and you break into my place of business and steal my goods.....you have become society's problem.

Sorry for the slight digression from the OP.

The fact is that individuals have the right to use any drug they choose. However, if they do harm you or your family in anyway then they should be sent to prison for many years to rot.

 

[Menthol Patch]

The Bill of Rights ensured that the FEDERAL government couldn't do those things. Until the Incorporation Doctrine, the Constitution didn't apply to the states. Incorporation Doctrine is debatable.

Even so, if you want a federal government powerful enough to ensure all those things, you'll have to deal with it being big enough to ensure all the things you don't like too. If 51% of the people think there should be no abortion, you'll have to live with that, as opposed to getting the law changed in your state, or moving to the next state over.

I'm all for the federal government leaving the states alone about many issues. For example, when it comes to crimes with REAL VICTIMS! However, when it comes to basic FREEDOM issues I think the federal government has a duty to get involved.

 

[Menthol Patch]

Before I could support Baldwin I would have to ask three very important questions.

1) Do you support legalizing all drugs and pardoning non violent drug users?

2) Do you support legalizing victimless crimes such as prostitution in which no one's rights are violated?

3) Do you support freedom of speech to the extent that you would support the right of individuals to openly burn (as long as there is not a public safety issue) the sacred books of any religion such as the Koran and the Christian Bible?

If Baldwin answers YES to all three then I will take back my accusation that he is a theocrat and someone that would continue the war on drugs.

Will you take this test Chuck Baldwin?

Will you answer my questions?

 

[Andrew-Austin]

The trouble with the OP is his uses too much of what he wants legalized

That must be so, because he has completely failed to even attempt to address what I posted on page four.

Oh well, I won't bother unblocking his posts anymore.

 

[dawnbt]

Hello Everyone,

I want to make something clear about the war on drugs. It is more than just a state issue. Individuals have the right to put anything they want into their own body and to live their life how they see fit. For example, I have the right to eat green beans if I so desire. The government has no right to arrest me, fine me, or imprison me for eating green beans. If my state made eating green beans illegal don't you think the federal government should get involved?

Yo Cheech, no one is gonna beg you to vote for Baldwin. Right in Woody Harrelson for all I care. Lighten up.

 

[JosephTheLibertarian]

Dr.Paul never said vote for Chuck Baldwin.. he said he is going to..


and as for the questions.. I agree 100%.

How so? You're a liar. Bob Barr is the only candidate on the Texas ballot.

Are Baldwin supporters all liars? Chuck Baldwin is a protectionist, he opposes free trade.

 

[Expatriate]

Chuck Baldwin is the Constitution Party candidate. Now I'm not an expert on the Constitution Party but if they truly support and defend the Constitution of the United States;

-The Constitution gives no right to the federal government or the executive branch to tell states whether they can or can't regulate drugs, prostitution, or book-burning.

So if Chuck Baldwin became President and followed the Constitution, he would have to repeal the federal drug laws as those issues are delegated to the individual states. However, he could not force legalization of drugs in each state, that would be unconstitutional. If all the states enacted laws prohibiting drugs or prostitution, it would be up to the local legislatures to challenge them individually.

 

[dawnbt]

I seriously want Chuck to answer these three questions.

If he will answer these questions I will vote for him and encourage others to do so.

If he will not answer these three questions I will write in Ron Paul.

Repeatedly asking Chuck to answer your questions on here like a lunatic as likely to happen as if you lit a bombfire in your yard, danced naked, playing a tuba, calling out to the God's of Chuck to send you a sign. Why don't you take a drag, calm down, and send him an email.

 

[JosephTheLibertarian]

look... he's not going to win the election. the whole point it to just vote for a third party candidate so that it sends a message that there is a large enough group of people who are tired with the two party system. at this point, it doesn't really matter if he represents your exact ideology. if the third parties can get 10-20% of the vote, then that will tell everyone that a third party candidate can win, and then in 2012, a third party could get 40% or 50% of the vote and win. so just vote for a third party... it doesn't matter if you don't agree with everything they say, since they're not going to win anyways... just as long as we get the message out that there are people willing to vote for a third party candidate and that a third party still has a chance in this two party system.

look...you're a hypocrite. You say "let's look past what Baldwin says, he won't win anyway" if you wanted to "send a message" you'd do it with the guy [Barr] that the media isn't ignoring, not with the guy [Baldwin] that the MSM ignores and noone has ever heard of.

and, principle? ha bull. the guy and his party are ANTI-FREE TRADE. That's synonymous with being anti-libertarian

 

[Menthol Patch]

Yo Cheech, no one is gonna beg you to vote for Baldwin. Right in Woody Harrelson for all I care. Lighten up.

I'm not asking anyone to convince me to vote for Baldwin.

I want Baldwin to answer these questions.

 

[Menthol Patch]

That must be so, because he has completely failed to even attempt to address what I posted on page four.

Oh well, I won't bother unblocking his posts anymore.

I have addressed those issues.

I will not support any candidate that does not support ALL of our freedoms.