Paul to pardon all non violent drug offenders

[robertwerden]

That needs to be on every blog and every news site headline with in the next hour.

Get on every google resulting blog on put this up now!

We need the entire family of every convicted non violent drug offender who is currently serving time in jail to see this. This will draw out a huge vote.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cldRh1SkRok

 

[..PAUL4PRES..]

That needs to be on every blog and every news site headline with in the next hour.

Get on every google resulting blog on put this up now!

We need the entire family of every convicted non violent drug offender who is currently serving time in jail to see this. This will draw out a huge vote.

+1000

 

[RustyBrewster]

But would he?

If he would, how would people who support the war on drugs feel?

The issue needs to be debated and discussed rather than simply say "Paul to pardon all non violent drug offenders", that'll scare more people than anything.

 

[NorwegianLibertarian]

Federally convicted ones I suppose.

 

[Eponym_mi]

The issue needs to be debated

It will be! RP is going to own the debate tonight.

 

[NoxTwilight]

All you have to do is point out that we let murderers and child molesters out early to make room for the "non-violent" offender. Anyone can see this is completely crazy. No criminal that is non-violent should be in prison in my mind - they should be put to work helping their communities and paying restitution. Besides you put a non-violent offender in prison, you will most likely turn him or her into a future violent offender.

I don't pretend to know really much, just an opinion I have always had.

.

 

[specsaregood]

HEre it is.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G7FwULXnM_E

 

[ItsTime]

that one sucks dont repost that crap

HEre it is.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G7FwULXnM_E

 

[Goldwater Conservative]

The issue needs to be debated and discussed rather than simply say "Paul to pardon all non violent drug offenders", that'll scare more people than anything.

But seriously, if pointing out that he's talking about NON-VIOLENT offenders (we already make a distinction between civil and criminal transgressions) doesn't work, point out that he wouldn't interfere with states choosing to maintain such a war on drugs. Most wouldn't, because it's a waste of resources and produces exactly zero positive results, but the option is always there.

 

[RustyBrewster]

But seriously, if pointing out that he's talking about NON-VIOLENT offenders (we already make a distinction between civil and criminal transgressions) doesn't work, point out that he wouldn't interfere with states choosing to maintain such a war on drugs. Most wouldn't, because it's a waste of resources and produces exactly zero positive results, but the option is always there.

That's what we need to say, we need to point things like that and explain the various aspects of the situation and the conclusion should be, hey the war on drugs is failing, these aren't violent people.

We shouldn't just send out messages to people saying "Paul to pardon all non violent drug offenders". That will scare more people that it will attract because most people see drugs as a serious problem even if they are 'non-violent' persons they contribute to a serious social problem which creates a good deal of violence.

Because Ron Paul is so different from everyone else and "radical" we need to be careful before we go around saying his more radical ideas. They can't be explained in one or two sentances. If we try we're more likely to scare people away.

p.s.s tommorrow morning i'll be sober and reread this thread.

 

[Sey.Naci]

But would he?

If he would, how would people who support the war on drugs feel?

The issue needs to be debated and discussed rather than simply say "Paul to pardon all non violent drug offenders", that'll scare more people than anything.

Why should it scare people, if it's only the "non violent" offenders who are released? They don't threaten anyone else!

 

[RustyBrewster]

Why should it scare people, if it's only the "non violent" offenders who are released? They don't threaten anyone else!

Because of all that is commonly associated with drugs! It's a touchy issues for a lot of people. I agree with Ron Paul in terms of the "war on drugs" 100% it's a total waste of time and resources. It isn't the government's responsibility to protect people from themselves. But there needs to be a lengthier explanation than that.

 

[Goldwater Conservative]

Because of all that is commonly associated with drugs! It's a touchy issues for a lot of people. I agree with Ron Paul in terms of the "war on drugs" 100% it's a total waste of time and resources. It isn't the government's responsibility to protect people from themselves. But there needs to be a lengthier explanation than that.

True, but he can't do that with the soundbite answers the media likes so much (the "isolationist" charge, for example). He should start being as forceful in demanding time to fully explain his positions as he was today on Wolf Blitzer.

 

[wildebeest]

Hello everyone! About 4 years ago I heard Rush Limblah say that if he was the gov. of FL the first thing he would do is pardon all non-violent drug offenders.I was impressed with that enough to let him be my ear candy at work (almost) daily until they replaced him with Boortz/Hannity.
This is my first post,but I have been browsing this forum for months and I really need to start posting more often.

 

[RSLudlum]

It will be! RP is going to own the debate tonight.

I don't know if it will,,,a discussion on crime has been severely lacking in the previous debates.

 

[RSLudlum]

but this is Huge!!! Considering the SC Primary is coming up. I hate to be in collectivist mode but a majority of my city, North Charleston, is black and will respond to this well.

 

[zadrock]

but this is Huge!!! Considering the SC Primary is coming up. I hate to be in collectivist mode but a majority of my city, North Charleston, is black and will respond to this well.

I, too, hate to be collectivist, but are they Republicans?

Z

 

[jimreport]

I've never heard him say it, and didn't see any of the videos posted above. But always had a pretty good feeling that his first week in office would involve the pardoning of 10's if not 100's of thousands of people in prison. Every non violent drug user, and every person convicted of tax violations. In addition to others convicted of unconstitutional laws.

The laws might still be there, but the desire to enforce them would take a huge blow when the president himself is pardoning them as fast as they can be prosecuted.

 

[RoyalTenenbaum]

This is a crazy idea, and I can't believe we're only hearing it now. I think it's a terrible idea, both politically, and governmentally.

It's one thing to work for the de-federalizing of drug crimes so that the states can enforce them as they see fit. But the whole structure for decades has been set up in reliance on federal enforcement. The people, through their elected representatives, have spoken on these issues, and it seems poor form to pardon all those people.

I don't see how this is any different than the incremental approach Paul would take on welfare, or social security. He realizes that people have come to rely on federal benefits, and there would be a weening off period. Same here. Most people are in favor of drug laws, and federal enforcement figures into their thinking. He should work to change the laws, and convince people on his positions, but he should not just pardon all these people.

And politically? People will freak the heck out if he starts talking like this. Whatever few votes you might gain from drug users' families (and it's not going to be that many) would be massively outweighed by those who would write him off for this kind of position.

 

[sratiug]

This is a crazy idea, and I can't believe we're only hearing it now. I think it's a terrible idea, both politically, and governmentally.

It's one thing to work for the de-federalizing of drug crimes so that the states can enforce them as they see fit. But the whole structure for decades has been set up in reliance on federal enforcement. The people, through their elected representatives, have spoken on these issues, and it seems poor form to pardon all those people.

I don't see how this is any different than the incremental approach Paul would take on welfare, or social security. He realizes that people have come to rely on federal benefits, and there would be a weening off period. Same here. Most people are in favor of drug laws, and federal enforcement figures into their thinking. He should work to change the laws, and convince people on his positions, but he should not just pardon all these people.

And politically? People will freak the heck out if he starts talking like this. Whatever few votes you might gain from drug users' families (and it's not going to be that many) would be massively outweighed by those who would write him off for this kind of position.

Consider the number of non-violent drug (or political) prisoners in jail. They all have families. Consider the number of people that drink, they all have families. Consider the number of people that take prescription drugs. They all have families. Consider the number of doctors and pharmacists and state and local police officers. They all have families. All of these people know (or should know) that non-violent drug offenders should be released. The amount of money saved would be astronomical on incarceration costs, not to mention the other war on drugs costs. Most people in the U.S. are on drugs (legal or otherwise) or know someone that is, it is time for this situation to change.

In Mississippi you can get an initiative on the ballot with signatures of 10% of the #of voters in the last governors election. The initiative must have a cost analysis. Just legalizing marijuana and taxing it while letting out non-violent marijuana offenders would be a net plus of millions to the state, not to mention possible creation of a huge profitable industry for the people of Mississippi.

Getting such an initiative on the ballot for the general election could be a huge plus for Ron Paul, imho. Those that would oppose this need to learn and be educated by the good Dr. The front lines of the freedom war are here at home in our prisons. We have neglected our people's rights, enabling the war on civil liberties to take hold that makes us all considered drug users and terrorists until we prove otherwise. To leave out the people paying the price for our laziness is the ultimate in hypocrisy.