Ron Paul, Republican, Says States Have Right to Legalize Pot??

I believe Paul’s entire platform is based on the ideas of lassaz-faire capitalism (likely misspelled). I heard him give a speech regarding how he wants to legalize pot, and his main platform point was that the government should not butt in enough to make it illegal. He also believes we should eliminate the IRS and the entire national Board of Education…because government should do…nothing (according to him, anyway). I see him as just an extremist that’s gone so far to the right, he’s almost circled and is back to the left on many things.

I don’t find what Ron Paul says to be contradictory at all because his idea is to put the responsibility on the states. I don’t know what his experience with drug rehab has been, but it’s success rate is pretty low over all. Ron Paul may be considered the voice of the older republicans before Regan. I really do feel that the states should have more of a say, but that will never happen because electing someone like Ron Paul would cut government jobs. Theory being that if that position is truly required by the people an organization will be made that will take care of that issue. People would only see that jobs would be cut and are not willing to wait for things to adjust.

Anyone elected into office can’t only see things past their terms becuase if they do something unpopular (even if it does help) they won’t be back for their next term, then they are unemployed. I respect Obama for the challenges he has agreed to face, but I don’t agree with many of his policies. I don’t believe in any bailout. I don’t believe the government should be involved in half of what it is and I really would have liked Ron Paul to have gone against Obama in the presidential race.

Paul is a RINO, and is no conservative. He is a libertarian. He is an extremist when it comes to government involvement in anything. He is part of the bunch who thinks that government is inefficient by nature, and that anything governemt can do, the free market can do better. I think that is exactly what corporate america would love us to believe. If the current state of the economy tells us anything, it is that unregulated corporate greed is far more harmful than an inefficient goverment program. There is nothing “free” about the free market. It is not the panacea libertarians and conservatives will have you believe.

You dont think that pro-life could be considered a value? There are many different types of values, just because you dont believe in it does not mean its not a value. Bush is one of many republicans and if you remember from the debates Ron Paul was an embarassment. He is a libertarian which is MUCH farther to the right then democrates will ever be on taxes. You say that republicans need to lean more to the left, if they did lean any more they would be democrats.

Ron Paul doesn’t think there is no need for government. He believes in constitutionally limited government. He is more against the Federal government having so much power, and would like to see those decisions made at a more local level.

The free market does solve many things better than government because it is ran by people. As in, I know what type of car I want to buy and what I need from it, better than some dude in D.C. If the government simply punished fraud and the use of force in the free market, but otherwise left people alone we would be fine. Greed is a problem because it causes people to act in fraudulent and forceful ways, so that “problem” with the free market would be curbed by government still.

This wouldn’t mean there is no social programs, it just means they would be implemented closer to home, and would be more able to adapt to the given situation. Right now we do a one-size-fits-all Federal approach to many laws, and social programs, and Ron Paul is the kind of person, who thinks the Federal government doesn’t have the ability to decide what is best for the state, nor does he believe the constitution grants them that right.

Therefore, if one state, decided that pot was OK for them it should be fine. States were meant to be sovereign, if Ron Paul were president this would closer to a reality. The E.U is much different than the U.S. because their “states” (nations) remain sovereign although they are part of a Union. So the E.U. can make laws with respect to all the countries with how Italy, per say, might interact with France and Germany, but if Italy wanted to grow hemp, and the E.U. said you can’t grow hemp, then Italy would say we are own country, back off.

Ron Paul is a very libertarian leaning Republican. There are a few others but in general the social conservatives are the base of the Republican party now.

I do wonder if younger people entering the party my be more receptive to his message. While he didn’t win a single state young conservatives were very receptive to his ideas.

Ron Paul is a libertarian who runs as a Republican because it’s impossible for Libertarians to win.

That’s why most of what he advocates aligns with the Libertarian party. The sad fact is, neither of the major parties will consider drug decriminalization…well, probably ever. The only hope for a sane drug policy is if states simply openly defy the fed and actively work to undermine their efforts. This is a legal approach that might actually happen.