Ron Paul to Bill Maher: America's War on Drugs must end

page: 2
56
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join

posted on Feb, 22 2009 @ 04:33 PM
link   
The unctuous, conceited Maher seems more amused by his glib stoner remark than his sycophantic audience.
Ron Paul was excellent as usual.




posted on Feb, 22 2009 @ 04:37 PM
link   
There is more people prospering financially from the war on drugs than people profiting from selling illicit drugs. The marijuana laws are costing the tax payers 10 to 12 billion a year.... Private incarceration facilities are corporations that pay prosecutors and judges large bribes to impose long sentences on young pot smokers and they are paid slave wages to produce products for companies that contract with the private correctional corporations..... Investors study the number of prisoners that are incarcerated by the different corporations and use those totals and the worth of the contracts for prisoner production.... It wasn't all that long ago that we were being told not to buy Chinese products that were made by prisoner slave labor.... The real reason wasn't due to human rights violations but to eliminate the competition..... This is just one more way that our tax dollars, law enforcement, and judicial system is being used to benefit those that are intent on enslaving us all and controlling every last cent of the wealth of the world.



posted on Feb, 22 2009 @ 04:43 PM
link   

Originally posted by caballero
Ron Paul is a great guy!
The only politician I can trust


Ron Paul is not the only politician that I can trust.

But he is the only current politician that I do trust. The only one who, in my opinion, has shown consistent intellectual integrity and honesty. I don't agree with him, on one or two issues, but that is far less important to me than strength of character.

Despite the rhetoric, none of the politicians I've listened to in the last ten or fifteen years have shown honest strength of character: the ability and desire to 'do the right thing', as they perceive it, without needing to market, spin, or subvert their motivations.

Interesting point-of-fact: the second-closest I've come in the last decade or two to that kind of forthrightness was Bob Dornan (look him up!). Not because I respect or agree with his opinions - far from it! - but because I truly felt that he was honestly advancing what he believed. An honorable mention also goes to Robert Byrd for ranting about Roman History, in excruciating CSPAN-detail, on the floor of Congress - too bad he never shed his academic or 50s-populist cloak.

In final tally, I would rather vote for an honest person with whom I disagree, than a dishonest person who says what I might want to hear.



posted on Feb, 22 2009 @ 04:50 PM
link   
Please Forgive The Preemptive Nature Of This Post, But...

Before it becomes an issue, and it almost always does, a friendly reminder:

The Discussion Of "Illegal Activity" On The Above Network Sites

And, most recently:

The Discussion Of "Illegal Activity" On The Above Network Sites: UPDATE

Sorry for what amounts to a topical digression, but we've been getting so many "I've been smoking it for years", "whoa, I'm so wasted" and "I grow it in my back yard" posts that it really is necessary to point out what awaits such posts and members who insist on making them.

Thank you so much to everyone who has stayed on topic and not taken us down that oft-traveled road.

It really does make a difference.



posted on Feb, 22 2009 @ 05:00 PM
link   
post removed for serious violation of ATS Terms & Conditions



posted on Feb, 22 2009 @ 05:07 PM
link   

Originally posted by gnosis111
Ha ha ha! Whatever.


No, not 'whatever'. ATS has been forthright about their stance on discussion of advocation or relation of personal drug use. Even though you might disagree, it's not too much to ask to respect that.

So it's fair to say the issue, that Ron Paul highlighted so well in the OP-link, is hypocrisy. A free-market, deregulated approach to economics, and respect for individual rights, in my opinion leads necessarily to questioning of current 'probationary laws'. Maher was stupid to imply that this made Paul a 'stoner'; it just shows how far 'staunch-populist' indoctrination has progressed.



posted on Feb, 22 2009 @ 05:30 PM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 



posted on Feb, 22 2009 @ 05:45 PM
link   
Sorry guys, but it is really difficult for me not to conclude that this is only a ploy by Congressman Paul to gain more attention as part of his four year long campaign for presidency, and I must say, this is a pretty darn good one! I mean, he didn't just outsmart every politician that ever lived with this ploy, he also trumped every previous classical example of the popular expression "too good to be true". How on earth did a guy with ideas such as he allow himself to become a victim of government-related media suppression during the '08 campaign? What will happen during the 2012 Campaign? Will they suppress him again? Will the earth still function as we know it? Will Ron Paul actually re-set the presidential election day voting record currently held by President Obama? This, my friends, remains to be seen. But I do know this, president or not, Ron Paul may be the lasting image that represents what "We The People" really stand for.


[edit on 2/22/2009 by Mr Knowledge]



posted on Feb, 22 2009 @ 05:47 PM
link   

Originally posted by Majic
Please Forgive The Preemptive Nature Of This Post, But...

Before it becomes an issue, and it almost always does, a friendly reminder:

The Discussion Of "Illegal Activity" On The Above Network Sites

And, most recently:

The Discussion Of "Illegal Activity" On The Above Network Sites: UPDATE

Sorry for what amounts to a topical digression, but we've been getting so many "I've been smoking it for years", "whoa, I'm so wasted" and "I grow it in my back yard" posts that it really is necessary to point out what awaits such posts and members who insist on making them.

Thank you so much to everyone who has stayed on topic and not taken us down that oft-traveled road.

It really does make a difference.





The hypocrisy flips the coin. Ron Paul and Bill Maher want to end the war on drugs. So does Jesse Ventura. So how do you discuss the conspiracies involved with America's War on Drugs then? This entire website is illegal.



posted on Feb, 22 2009 @ 05:51 PM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 



posted on Feb, 22 2009 @ 06:02 PM
link   
post removed for serious violation of ATS Terms & Conditions



posted on Feb, 22 2009 @ 06:17 PM
link   
reply to post by Shakezoola
 


So what? What does that have to do with the current economic crisis? Or individual rights versus governmental regulation as a political policy? Did you even read the previous moderator post in this thread? Sheesh, what do you hope to accomplish? :shk:

Dang it all, I think I agree - best just to censor.


jra

posted on Feb, 22 2009 @ 06:42 PM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 



posted on Feb, 22 2009 @ 06:56 PM
link   
2nd warning

Terms and Coditions of ATS

2e.) Illegal Activity: Discussion of illegal activities; specifically mind-altering drugs, computer hacking, criminal hate, sexual relations with minors, and stock scams are strictly forbidden. You will also not link to sites that contains discussion of such material.

Discuss the topic, but leave your personal experiences OUT of it.

Thank you.



posted on Feb, 22 2009 @ 07:09 PM
link   

Originally posted by WISHADOW
So how do you discuss the conspiracies involved with America's War on Drugs then?


Simple. Same as every other conspiracy with political aspect. Follow The Money. Guess who wins by making various agricultural alternatives illegal? Who wins by making cheap, consumer-producible medical alternatives illegal? Who wins by making certain a constant privately-maintained prison system will always be full of 'offenders'? How about the lucrative business of 'rehabilitation and prevention'?

Now, answering that, who contributes to political campaigns? Who spends and influences advertising dollars?

In parallel to all that, how does the United States gain by there being a worldwide 'virtual economy', untraceable by disclosed oversight? How does that allow a government to both hide and manipulate nation enemies?

And, in the constant battleground for public opinion, how does it help to have a 'targeted enemy'? One that is not simply a person or organization that can be specifically addressed, but rather is of such a nature that encourages polarized public opinion? And as an added benefit, how could such an assumed 'battleground' be used to discredit objecting 'fringe' elements of society?

Let's ask all these questions. You can easily find many theories and much evidence, by an intelligent search of these forums. I think the answers, as they can be variously interpreted, are obvious to most ATS members. Why is this not part of the public discourse? My previous post in this thread was surrounded by 'warn' alerts. Guess what: this one won't be, and this post won't be censored. ATS is more free than unsophisticated advocates would have you believe.



posted on Feb, 22 2009 @ 07:14 PM
link   

Originally posted by Mr Knowledge
Sorry guys, but it is really difficult for me not to conclude that this is only a ploy by Congressman Paul to gain more attention as part of his four year long campaign for presidency, and I must say, this is a pretty darn good one! I mean, he didn't just outsmart every politician that ever lived with this ploy, he also trumped every previous classical example of the popular expression "too good to be true". How on earth did a guy with ideas such as he allow himself to become a victim of government-related media suppression during the '08 campaign? What will happen during the 2012 Campaign? Will they suppress him again? Will the earth still function as we know it? Will Ron Paul actually re-set the presidential election day voting record currently held by President Obama? This, my friends, remains to be seen. But I do know this, president or not, Ron Paul may be the lasting image that represents what "We The People" really stand for.


[edit on 2/22/2009 by Mr Knowledge]


Dr. Paul has been all about this since he has been in politics.. nothing new.. he just has never really gotten any MSM attention on this topic before



posted on Feb, 22 2009 @ 07:17 PM
link   

Originally posted by squiz
Also to add to the ridiculousness, hemp also falls into the same category and you can't even get stoned on it. But you can use it too replace many inferior and toxic substances produced by industry.


If I remember correctly, I believe the Constitution is written on hemp paper.

By the way, for those interested, google the history behind marijuana becoming illegal.
Several obviously made up stories were presented (such as people going crazy and murdering everyone after smoking pot, which we now know is absurd) and other fishy business including racism (as blacks and hispanics were by far the biggest users).

I personally believe there was some under the table money being made from paper companies who were competing with hemp and would have very much wanted it to be made illegal...



posted on Feb, 22 2009 @ 07:19 PM
link   
Oh jeeze, this thread somehow ran headfirst into a brick wall when I wasn't looking.

What I was going to say is about the statement "wouldn't they just tax is like liquor?"

My questions:
1) Would there be an age minimum?
2) How could they tax it unless the government was allowing it to be sold only in stores?
- This would be a huge problem. Everyone who currently grows it and sells it for profit (a HUGE amount of people, even just the people who sell it at a higher price from the suppliers that they get it from included) would be, in essence, out of a job. They wouldn't allow it to just be sold on the black market, because no one could tax it. And no one could regulate it (like underage use, etc.)
3) And for my general argument all the time- What would we do when employers make it prohibited in their employees but everyone is legally allowed to smoke it? What would we do when all the depressed unemployed people start deciding to smoke pot because it makes them feel better? Would it help them go out and get jobs?
4) What about using it while driving? Or pregnant? Or in public? What about secondhand highs (which happens, I hear... would you want it to be legal and then everyone smokes outside or in apartments and kids start getting buzzed off of it?

And again, I 100% support the use of the marijuana plant for medicinal use when prescribed by doctors, as well as for the development of new fuels and for use in the textile industry. For all of those cases, there would be companies growing it. Companies would need to grow it, because otherwise it would become laced with illicit drugs. The FDA would need to monitor it in private companies because of possible pesticide use or genetic modification to make stronger plants.

So anyone who thinks that it would stay the same price, be sold by whoever, for anyone to use, and not be under very close scrutiny by their employers as well as the government to make sure that it is "healthy" and taxed... you're seriously living in dreamland.

[edit on 2/22/2009 by ravenshadow13]



posted on Feb, 22 2009 @ 07:27 PM
link   
I cant see what would be wrong with following the Dutch example, it seems to work fine for them and their not a nation of Pot users its mainly a tourist industry, although in recent times even the Dutch are becoming more controlled on the drug issue. As of december last year the sale of hallucinogenic mushrooms has been outlawed. That said they are still ahead of the rest for now.



posted on Feb, 22 2009 @ 07:49 PM
link   

Originally posted by ravenshadow13
3) And for my general argument all the time- What would we do when employers make it prohibited in their employees but everyone is legally allowed to smoke it? What would we do when all the depressed unemployed people start deciding to smoke pot because it makes them feel better? Would it help them go out and get jobs?
4) What about using it while driving? Or pregnant? Or in public?


Let me point out that both these arguments could as easily be applied to alcohol, as anything else, with the exception of the 'secondhand smoke' mention that you talked about in your complete point #4.

The contrast, despite the fact that the evidence I have seen has shown to me that alcohol users are more prone to violence and incapacity, is that from what I understand, a single five-second "puff" will intoxicate, potentially to the point of impairment of coordination. This is in contrast to alcohol, which requires some determination to become intoxicated with - several drinks. I am wary about being forced to share the roads with 'legal smokers', for that reason.





new topics
 
56
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join