John Stossel Interviews Ron Paul
By Justin Gardner | Related entries in 2008 Election, Drugs, Ron PaulThe 20/20 journo talks with RP about his stances on drugs and prostitution:
“I think the government’s role should not be involved in personal habits. When you defend freedom, you defend freedom of choice, and you can’t be picking and choosing how people use those freedoms… whether it’s personal behavior or economic behavior, I want people to have freedom of choice,” Paul asserted. [...]Paul said we shouldn’t treat addicts as criminals.
“We treat ‘em as criminals rather than sick people, we have pushed a lot of people into prostitution. So prostitution is related to the mistakes we’ve made in the drug war.”
Agreed all around. We’re wasting our time, money and jail space on an impossible goal.
Remember, we tried to fight alcohol once and we all know how that turned out. More crime and more alcohol consumption. Why should we think other narcotics are any different?
This entry was posted on Saturday, December 8th, 2007 and is filed under 2008 Election, Drugs, Ron Paul. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.
December 8th, 2007 at 4:35 pm
Before the Paul bashers descend on this thread and call Dr. Paul a “Liberal-tarian” or “Libertine,” consider this:
If taxes weren’t taking 40% of our income, would people be using drugs and prostituting themselves?
If Nevada residents want to legalize prostitution, or if California wants to legalize marijuana, who cares? If you don’t like it, then tell YOUR legislature in YOUR state not to legalize it.
Anyway, I think John Stossel should stick to the real issues instead of trying to portray Paul as some willy-nilly libertarian when his devout Christian faith says otherwise.
December 8th, 2007 at 4:42 pm
The real story here is that ABC isn’t going to show the interview on TV, just online, stating that that is where the Ron Paul debate is taking place. Gee, I wonder why that is….
December 8th, 2007 at 5:13 pm
Honestly, I’ve fallen in love with Ron Paul . . .
December 8th, 2007 at 5:38 pm
Brian,
Paul is a libertarian. And that means that he may be religious but also means he wouldn’t impose his religious views on others.
You really need to learn more about libertarianism before criticizing it.
December 8th, 2007 at 5:47 pm
Yes. In one form or another, they were both around before the idea of taxes even existed.
December 8th, 2007 at 6:00 pm
Justin Gardner Says:
December 8th, 2007 at 5:47 pm
“If taxes weren’t taking 40% of our income, would people be using drugs and prostituting themselves?
Yes. In one form or another, they were both around before the idea of taxes even existed.”
Maybe not. I think taxes were invented the first time one hominid threatened to bash his neighbor on the head with a club in order to appropriate his property for the greater good. :)
December 8th, 2007 at 6:22 pm
I agree with the prohibition statement.
Criminalization Of Nonviolent Acts Is A Detriment To Society.
Forced Morals Never Work And The Problem Is Compounded By Removing Productive Members Of Society.
One Does Not Have To Condone Or Remain Silent About Perceived Moral Blights. However; When The Term “Forced For Their Own Good” Comes Into The Discussion One Must Be Wary Of Motive.
By Criminalizing A Particular Product Or Service; Instantly There Is Created The “Anti-Capitalism” That Will Supply The Need By Any Means Necessary. An Inconvenient Moral Dilemma Becomes An Armed War Of Desperate Factions.
The Cure Becomes Worse Than The Disease.
For Over 30 Years The Drug War Has Waged; Almost Infinitely Longer If You Consider History. No reduction has been seen in usage. Now over 50% of our prison inmates are Nonviolent Drug Offenders. We Are Paying For A Great Majority OF People That Would More Or Less Be Contributing To Society.
It Is A Lose/Lose Scenario.
Ron Paul Is The Only Candidate That Is Using Root Cause And Corrective Action Analysis.
I Vote For Virtue, I Vote For Ron Paul !!!
December 8th, 2007 at 6:41 pm
Ron Paul specifically states that he believes that the states have the right to impose their views of morality as law in an article he wrote.
December 8th, 2007 at 7:03 pm
Tom – I’m familiar with libertarianism. I wasn’t criticizing it at all.
A lot of people look at libertarianism and all they see is drugs, porn, and anarchism, which isn’t true. I was defending Dr. Paul from the expected attacks on him.
December 8th, 2007 at 8:53 pm
Follow the money. Drug laws enable the government, vis-a-vis the IRS, DEA, BATF, State and Local Law enforcement to haul in enormous amounts of money and property through the drug forfeiture laws. Many law enforcement organizations even figure these seizures into ther BUDGETS! Do you think they want to give up their gravy train and forego all their toys like tanks, ‘anti-terrorist’ weapons and surveillance equipment? Not a chance. When Doctor Paul says that legalization will remove the profit motive from drugs, he is not only talking about illegal sellers and producers, he is also talking about the BILLIONS of dollars the law enforcement community makes off this insane ‘War on Drugs’.
As with prohibition in the 1920’s, the war on drugs has led to INCREASED drug use, a burgeoning crime rate, and a incarceration rate for otherwise law-abiding non-violent ‘criminals’ that is taxing the limits of our penal system. When a person convicted of Marijuana possession or distribution ends up staying in jail longer than the average thief, rapist or murderer (due to ‘Mandatory Minimum Sentencng Laws), then the sysem is obviously broken.
The government can pass all the laws they want trying to protect people from their own stupidity, but it never has and never will be able to legislate morality. The war on drugs is a fine way to support a law enforcement and penal system run wild, as well as a convenient method for politicians to appear to be ‘effective’ while actually doing nothing (or worse, digging America deeper into a mire of confusion), but legalizing drug usage and taxing and reguating it will result in a safer, healthier and less oppressive America, despite the misguided and profit-driven rhetoric of those who say otherwise.
xtrabiggg
++++++++++++++++++++++++
December 9th, 2007 at 1:32 am
I agree. The best thing for the government to do is to stick to protecting the public from other people’s stupidity, as it does with drunk-driving laws. As far as I’m concerned, our laws should be: “Smoke pot? Fine. Smoke pot and then get behind the wheel of a car? Your ass goes to jail.”
December 9th, 2007 at 2:57 am
Doug’s right, what a total cop out in not airing the interview on t.v. It sounds like on one hand they’re trying to appease Paul supporters, without pissing off the establishment by actually taking the campaign seriously. Perhaps a good old fashioned letter writing campaign is called for. The kind you can’t delete with a push of the button. Truck loads that have to be dealt with. Just an idea.
December 9th, 2007 at 5:54 am
Hey, Paul basher here. No problem with his stance on legalized prostitution. Good job Ron! Good to see that you’re finally coming around on the issue.
But twas not always so.
In 1988 before the Libertarian Nominating Convention for President in Seattle, Ron Paul was asked about the same issue by a libertarian publication. They asked him who would he like to see as his running mate for the VP slot. His answer:
“I’ll take anyone on the VP position to run with me, anyone that is except for that Prostitute woman from California…”
That “Prostitute woman from California” of course, was Norma Jean Almodovar the “Cop to Call Girl” who rant for Lt. Gov. on the Libertarian ticket in 1986.
Somebody should ask Ron Paul today, if he does indeed win the GOP nomination would he accept the Nevada brothel owner who has been such a big supporter of his, as his running mate for the VP slot?
December 9th, 2007 at 12:55 pm
Note to readers: Eric Dondero employment was terminated by RP and he has an axe to grind.
December 9th, 2007 at 12:57 pm
If you look at the War on Drugs not as just a repeat of Prohibition, but as another battle in the “culture wars”, that goes a long way toward explaining the WoD’s enduring appeal in spite of its failures, and shows what an uphill climb libertarians like Ron Paul face.
We’re nowhere near eradicating illegal drug use or the illegal drug trade, in this or any other country, but on the other hand these same drugs haven’t exactly made their way into the mainstream of American culture (to the extent that there is such as thing anymore) either. This is what the “drug warriors” really want, not so much to completely wipe out drugs (though they may put this front and center in their rhetoric) as to keep them stigmatized and demonized, and therefore out of the cultural mainstream. In that respect, and that respect alone, the drug war actually does work. But this is more than enough for the drug warriors, and the cultural conservatives who support them.
Ron Paul says government should not intervene in people’s personal habits, and I agree with that. But government should also not engage in cultural engineering (and certainly should not intervene in people’s personal habits for that purpose). I don’t know exactly the extent to which Paul concurs with this, but he is clearly much less inclined toward cultural engineering than any of his GOP rivals. That, to me, is a big mark in his favor.
December 9th, 2007 at 2:38 pm
“I’ll take anyone on the VP position to run with me, anyone that is except for that Prostitute woman from California…â€
That “Prostitute woman from California†of course, was Norma Jean Almodovar the “Cop to Call Girl†who rant for Lt. Gov. on the Libertarian ticket in 1986.”
So in order for Ron Paul to FULLY support the legality of prostitution, he has to consider having a prostitute as a VP?
So since he’s against the War on Drugs, he should also consider a pothead or crackhead as a VP?
Excuse me if I don’t see your logic Eric.
December 9th, 2007 at 3:14 pm
posted by Eric DUMdero on 12/9/07 @ 5:54 p.m.
“Somebody should ask RON PAUL would he accept the brothel owner as his
running mate?”
Mr. DUMdero,
For your information RON PAUL does not say that he ACCEPTS what this brothel owner does for a living or the prostitutes for that matter. What RON PAUL is saying is , who is he to judge what this man does for a living. Trust
me, his supporters know what RON PAUL means. No, I do not think RON PAUL would ask a brothel owner to be his Vice President, NOR WOULD I……. Anyway I hope you get my point. By the way, I hear YOUR EMPLOYMENT WAS TERMINATED by RON PAUL. Well, pretty much that says it all. RON PAUL is an honest man and a mild tempered man so YOU must have done something pretty ROTTEN TO GET YOURSELF FIRED!!!!!!!!!!
December 9th, 2007 at 9:45 pm
I do have to admit that the War on Drugs is one of the few things I agree with Ron Paul on. My attitude has always been if what you do doesn’t affect me it’s none of my business, whether it’s your choice to do drugs (So long as you’re not behind the wheel of a car or in some other similar situation.) or what you do in your sex life. Of course the latter view is not shared by Dr. Paul.
December 11th, 2007 at 6:04 am
Hey everyone, check out this site for a Times Square Ad to coincide with the 16 Dec Tea Party Money Bomb. The cutoff is the 12th (I know, not much time), but they only need $50,000.
Great advertising scheme that would reach lots of people.
http://www.ronpaultime.com/
December 21st, 2007 at 6:40 pm
ok so we’re not supposed to put drug users in jail? how the hell are they going to get the motivation to get off drugs? with nothing around to scare these people, what’s going to push them to quit? rehab is a pretty cushy sentence for these people, they can just bull sh*t their way through it, jail and prison is the only thing that will wake these people up and make these people get their sh*t together. i have a friend that was recently busted with a whole bunch of meth on him, he hasn’t gone to trial yet, but he sure is f**king scared out of his mind now and he doesn’t do meth anymore.