Rand Paul Endorses Gary Johnson for Senate.

[euphemia]

YOU YOURSELF insist that cannabis being completely illegal is preferable to it being legal and regulated.

I never said that. This is at least the second time you have twisted my words around with no proof at all.

What I am saying is that Gary Johnson is not a libertarian. He is a big government libertine who wants to use government to promote the things he likes and stick it to the rest of us.

 

[dannno]

I never said that. This is at least the second time you have twisted my words around with no proof at all.

What I am saying is that Gary Johnson is not a libertarian. He is a big government libertine who wants to use government to promote the things he likes and stick it to the rest of us.

Ok, so you would say that legalization and regulation is better than it being completely illegal?

How is legalizing cannabis sticking it to the rest of us when it is a better alternative that what we have now?

 

[euphemia]

Ok, so you would say that legalization and regulation is better than it being completely illegal?

How is legalizing cannabis sticking it to the rest of us when it is a better alternative that what we have now?

That’s not a liberty position. That’s a big(ger) government position. Both positions require a lot of government to regulate and control the substance and the users. This is typical GJ spin. Big government is great as long as it gives you permission to do what you want.

I will never support a candidate who operates this way. Government will never be limited as long as people like you demand more law to give you what you want. A liberty thinker would demand a repeal on all cannibis law.

 

[dannno]

That’s not a liberty position. That’s a big(ger) government position. Both positions require a lot of government to regulate and control the substance and the users. This is typical GJ spin. Big government is great as long as it gives you permission to do what you want.

I will never support a candidate who operates this way. Government will never be limited as long as people like you demand more law to give you what you want. A liberty thinker would demand a repeal on all cannibis law.

I demonstrated above that there is more liberty in the position of legalization than there is in the position of criminalization, recall:

1.
If weed is illegal as it was for most of the last 50 years, then you can illegally grow cannabis on your property, sell it illegally, buy it illegally, possess it illegally, smoke it illegally out of illegal paraphernalia/pipes, etc..

The smell of cannabis, which is quite potent, in and of itself is proof of illegal activity. This causes widespread police harassment.

2.
If weed is legal but heavily regulated, you can still illegally grow cannabis on your property, sell it illegally, buy it illegally, possess it legally, smoke it legally out of legal paraphenalia/pipes, etc..

The smell of cannabis, which is quite potent, is not proof of illegal activity. This prevents widespread police harassment.




If you actually used cannabis, why wouldn't you prefer the second one to the first?

It is better to have more liberty than less liberty. It is better to have a 10% tax rate than an 80% tax rate. When the tax rate is 80%, lowering it to 10% is not an anti-liberty position. You get more liberty with a 10% tax than an 80% tax, so advocating a 10% tax when the tax rate is 80% is a pro-liberty position. Advocating a 10% tax when the tax rate is 5% is an anti-liberty position.

 

[dannno]

YOU YOURSELF insist that cannabis being completely illegal is preferable to it being legal and regulated.

I never said that. This is at least the second time you have twisted my words around with no proof at all.

Proof:

Ok, so you would say that legalization and regulation is better than it being completely illegal?

How is legalizing cannabis sticking it to the rest of us when it is a better alternative that what we have now?

That’s not a liberty position. That’s a big(ger) government position. Both positions require a lot of government to regulate and control the substance and the users. This is typical GJ spin. Big government is great as long as it gives you permission to do what you want.

I will never support a candidate who operates this way. Government will never be limited as long as people like you demand more law to give you what you want. A liberty thinker would demand a repeal on all cannibis law.

I do demand a repeal on all cannabis law - but I prefer a repeal on some cannabis laws to increase liberty over a repeal on no cannabis laws.

You actually hold the anti-liberty position because you prefer less liberty to more liberty. I prefer more liberty to less liberty, even if it isn't perfect.

 

[euphemia]

If I may, let me tell you what happens when government controls a substance because of the War On Drugs:

I live in the allergy capitol of the world because anything grows here, we have a long growing season, and we get a lot of rain. I have serious allergies and I follow a very strict regimen.

Pseudoephedrine (Sudafed) has been OTC for longer than my adult life. The serious nature of my allergies mean I need this decongestant every day. It has not been a problem until the War On Drugs people decided too many people were abusing sedated to make methamphetimine. Sudafed became a controlled substance. The law states we cannot purchase more than a certain amount per household in a certain amount of time.

I have a prescription. I pay a copay to visit my allergist. He sends the prescription to the pharmacy. I then go to the pharmacy and my driver's license is scanned, and I am allowed to buy the meds I need. At the pharmacy counter. I can only purchase it there, because it is a prescription, and if my husband happens to need a decongestant a few days a year, he cannot use my prescription and our household has its allotment. We cannot buy more. There is no privacy or choice about it.

Is that really what you want to see happen to cannabis, a plant you can grow in your own yard for your own use?

Here's another relevant example: I use an asthma inhaler. This inhaler used to be $5 a month cash, no copay. Then the EPA decided the propellant in the inhaler was toxic to the environment. So now the copay for this rescue inhaler is now $50. I cannot afford to pay for a daily maintenance inhaler at all because the government controls the active ingredient.

So I am now at risk for complications because of my inability to breathe. I run the risk for infection, heart disease, and diabetes because of the War On Drugs.

No, to any more government regulation for anything.

Gary Johnson does not consider the implications of his purpose and language. If he is a true libertarian he will insist that government remove regulation on cannabis. Government should have no position at all.

 

[Swordsmyth]

If I may, let me tell you what happens when government controls a substance because of the War On Drugs:

I live in the allergy capitol of the world because anything grows here, we have a long growing season, and we get a lot of rain. I have serious allergies and I follow a very strict regimen.

Pseudoephedrine (Sudafed) has been OTC for longer than my adult life. The serious nature of my allergies mean I need this decongestant every day. It has not been a problem until the War On Drugs people decided too many people were abusing sedated to make methamphetimine. Sudafed became a controlled substance. The law states we cannot purchase more than a certain amount per household in a certain amount of time.

I have a prescription. I pay a copay to visit my allergist. He sends the prescription to the pharmacy. I then go to the pharmacy and my driver's license is scanned, and I am allowed to buy the meds I need. At the pharmacy counter. I can only purchase it there, because it is a prescription, and if my husband happens to need a decongestant a few days a year, he cannot use my prescription and our household has its allotment. We cannot buy more. There is no privacy or choice about it.

Is that really what you want to see happen to cannabis, a plant you can grow in your own yard for your own use?

Here's another relevant example: I use an asthma inhaler. This inhaler used to be $5 a month cash, no copay. Then the EPA decided the propellant in the inhaler was toxic to the environment. So now the copay for this rescue inhaler is now $50. I cannot afford to pay for a daily maintenance inhaler at all because the government controls the active ingredient.

So I am now at risk for complications because of my inability to breathe. I run the risk for infection, heart disease, and diabetes because of the War On Drugs.

No, to any more government regulation for anything.

Gary Johnson does not consider the implications of his purpose and language. If he is a true libertarian he will insist that government remove regulation on cannabis. Government should have no position at all.

Cannabis is not available over the counter and the alternative options to GJ want to keep things the way they are.

 

[dannno]

If I may, let me tell you what happens when government controls a substance because of the War On Drugs:

I live in the allergy capitol of the world because anything grows here, we have a long growing season, and we get a lot of rain. I have serious allergies and I follow a very strict regimen.

Pseudoephedrine (Sudafed) has been OTC for longer than my adult life. The serious nature of my allergies mean I need this decongestant every day. It has not been a problem until the War On Drugs people decided too many people were abusing sedated to make methamphetimine. Sudafed became a controlled substance. The law states we cannot purchase more than a certain amount per household in a certain amount of time.

I have a prescription. I pay a copay to visit my allergist. He sends the prescription to the pharmacy. I then go to the pharmacy and my driver's license is scanned, and I am allowed to buy the meds I need. At the pharmacy counter. I can only purchase it there, because it is a prescription, and if my husband happens to need a decongestant a few days a year, he cannot use my prescription and our household has its allotment. We cannot buy more. There is no privacy or choice about it.

Is that really what you want to see happen to cannabis, a plant you can grow in your own yard for your own use?

Here's another relevant example: I use an asthma inhaler. This inhaler used to be $5 a month cash, no copay. Then the EPA decided the propellant in the inhaler was toxic to the environment. So now the copay for this rescue inhaler is now $50. I cannot afford to pay for a daily maintenance inhaler at all because the government controls the active ingredient.

So I am now at risk for complications because of my inability to breathe. I run the risk for infection, heart disease, and diabetes because of the War On Drugs.

No, to any more government regulation for anything.

Gary Johnson does not consider the implications of his purpose and language. If he is a true libertarian he will insist that government remove regulation on cannabis. Government should have no position at all.

Would you prefer that Sudafed be completely criminalized and that you have to buy it from a street dealer and don't know the potency or what else may be in it? And have it be more expensive than it is now? If you get caught with a pill you go to prison?

Because that is how it was for weed for most of the last 50 years.

Now that it is regulated, you can grow your own, buy some on the illegal market and have it tested legally, you have all kinds of options.

It's not optimal, but it is better than when it was completely criminalized.

 

[Superfluous Man]

The call for legalization is the wrong way to go. The government should remain neutral and silent on the issue, and immediately repeal all law where it is mentioned. People should be able to grow and use whatever they want in their own yard without any interference from anyone. It's nobody's business.

The call for legalization is the wrong way to go? But then your next sentence is a call for legalization.

 

[r3volution 3.0]

I am officially endorsing Gary Johnson myself!

Ditto

I wonder if Ron will also endorse him. I could see him doing it or not doing it. But I'd like to see him do it just to see the reactions of some here whose level of hatred for GJ is irrational.

I don't think Ron's endorsing anyone these days, but I expect he would if he were.

On the other hand,

Just bake the @#@&ing cake already.

...I can't think of an issue more crucial for the future of Western civilization than **** cakes.

I figured that someday the first "L" in Congress would be in the House of Representatives -
but fine if he is really running as a Libertarian and is in all the local NM debates.

Johnson should avoid displays of affection to other debaters . . .

That doesn't seem to be a bar to election.

 

[euphemia]

The call for legalization is the wrong way to go? But then your next sentence is a call for legalization.

No. My call is for all cannabis law to be repealed. It is not the same at all. Liberty thinkers need to frame the discussion in a way that restricts government.

 

[euphemia]

It is better to have more liberty than less liberty.

Liberty is not quantitative. Either you have it, or you don’t.

 

[dannno]

Liberty is not quantitative. Either you have it, or you don’t.

So are you saying that a 1% income tax is equal to a 90% income tax?

I already broke it down for you.

I have the liberty to carry around weed, and if a cop finds me with weed, it is legal. I have the liberty to grow weed because it is legal. That is some liberty.

I don't have the liberty to open a weed store down the street without going through a bunch of regulatory hoops and bribing the city council. That is a lack of liberty, in a specific area, but overall there is still more liberty than if it was criminalized.

You have the liberty to go buy sudafed in the store, go home, and if a cop pulls you over he won't take you to jail for having it. Imagine if it was completely illegal to purchase sudafed, and you got thrown in jail for having it on your person. That would be less liberty than you have now.

 

[Origanalist]

No. My call is for all cannabis law to be repealed. It is not the same at all. Liberty thinkers need to frame the discussion in a way that restricts government.

So you've changed your stance on the drug war? Better late than never.

 

[euphemia]

That’s not liberty. Liberty is when we are free to enjoy our inalienable rights without thought toward government.

Pot is not my issue. Liberty is my issue. Government must be restricted. This is what we should be talking about. Pot and decongestants are things that can change pronto. We need to reframe the argument. The argument should not be how much regulation, but on what date certain government will lose the power to regulate and restrict this kind of stuff.

 

[Swordsmyth]

That’s not liberty. Liberty is when we are free to enjoy our inalienable rights without thought toward government.

Pot is not my issue. Liberty is my issue. Government must be restricted. This is what we should be talking about. Pot and decongestants are things that can change pronto. We need to reframe the argument. The argument should not be how much regulation, but on what date certain government will lose the power to regulate and restrict this kind of stuff.

You continue to describe the ideal without explaining how either of the other candidates is better than GJ, we don't have the ideal available but GJ will get us closer to it.

 

[specsaregood]

You have the liberty to go buy sudafed in the store, go home, and if a cop pulls you over he won't take you to jail for having it. Imagine if it was completely illegal to purchase sudafed, and you got thrown in jail for having it on your person. That would be less liberty than you have now.

When is the last time you bought Sudafed? You don't have complete liberty to buy it, there are very strict limits to how much you can purchase, and requires your ID get entered into a database. Get caught with too much and you might very well be looking at jail.

 

[Swordsmyth]

When is the last time you bought Sudafed? You don't have complete liberty to buy it, there are very strict limits to how much you can purchase, and requires your ID get entered into a database. Get caught with too much and you might very well be looking at jail.

Not at all ideal but is that better or worse than not being able to legally buy or posses any?
In the case of Sudafed things used to be better and this is worse than before but weed is worse and if it becomes like Sudafed or better that is an improvement.
Remember that there isn't a candidate in the race that wants total decriminalization.

 

[dannno]

When is the last time you bought Sudafed? You don't have complete liberty to buy it, there are very strict limits to how much you can purchase, and requires your ID get entered into a database. Get caught with too much and you might very well be looking at jail.

Ya she already brought that up. But that is still preferable than having it be completely illegal to buy in any amount, anywhere, and when you do (from a drug dealer..) how do you know what's in it? Pretty sure the sudafed you buy in the store is fairly high quality.

 

[Aratus]

That doesn't seem to be a bar to election.