Ron Paul's - War on Drugs and so on..
 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AyTZI...eature=related

Some crazy stuff here..

I like Ron, he was my pick. It's impossible for anyone to say how things would actually shake out if drugs and prostitution were legal, but he encompasses my beliefs on the role of government more than any other politician that I know of.

I'm all for legalizing marijuana....

But when he starts talking about whether it's okay for children to purchase and use drugs, even cigarettes... wow.

I have never heard him say that. What minute in the video was that in?

He mentions in the first 90 seconds whether or not states would decide if it's okay for children to purchase these things.

I'm not saying he himself believes they should, but he suggest states should make the decision if children can or could.

I'm sure the States would pretty much make the same determination that the Federal Gov't does. It's not like the States would say fug it, children can buy booze. He just wants it taken out of the hands of the Federal Gov't. Nothing in that video sounded crazy to me. Actually, damn, the idea of States having that kind of power is scary. It'll never happen though, so...

What size population does a state or country have to be before we think they can have the ability to safely govern themselves in a way we find acceptable? If we take out issues of constitutionality and the way the country was founded an all that and just look at numbers, I mean....Is 300 million the perfect number? Could a smaller state/country of just say, 10 million simply not be trusted because they might do something crazy?

I'm all for the legalization of marijuana. But I've changed when it comes to other drugs. Seen too much stuff with bath salts and meth in the city to ever side with legalizing it. There are drugs that people can use and it doesn't hurt others, and there are drugs like meth that result in others having to pick up the pieces. That's where I draw the line.

Hey, maybe Meth would go away if people could just get their hands on some nice blow at a better price!

If the states had free reign on drugs obviously a bunch would legalize marijuana, and if that went well, if they got some tax revenues out of it, and the cities weren't burned down by crazy hippies, a bunch more would legalize it. Which is one of the advantages of more state autonomy I think. Look of the development of Western Europe (debt issues aside), if smaller, autonomous, states can put together something quickly that works well like a type of health care, or education system, it can spread quickly. What kind of economic and social systems would Europe have developed if it was one powerful and giant country dominated by corporate influence?

On the other hand, if a state legalized heroin for instance, it would make it much easier to acquire in surrounding states that had made it illegal. It's not 1850 where it's a life changing decision to go from one state to the next. I can make a trip up to Wisconsin anytime I want with ease.

You can already do that. People cross state lines to buy things such as fireworks from one state to the next, so why would drugs be anything special,

Are there that many people that would do drugs like heroin and meth but-for their illegality? Obviously, economics works at the margin--there are some people that get priced out of the market or view potential legal costs as too high--but I'd imagine demand is relatively inelastic; the people that would do it already do. Making it legal would at least allow us to focus our resources on those with real addiction (or at least trying to ensure they don't reuse needles, etc.). Drugs are a demand-side problem--people love to get high, as Chris Rock once famously said--you won't solve it with supply-side solutions. Indeed, the illegality of drugs induces participants with high rents for those willing to take the risks of dealing.

I see stuff like environmental issues as true "interstate" areas of federal concern, because one state's pollution impacts us all in profound ways, but as for drugs and most other stuff, even though they're technically a part "interstate commerce", I just wish that concept wasn't stretched that far. The Idaho State Police have a field day with their drug dogs on the highway between Boise and Oregon making a ton of marijuana trafficking arrests. And a lot of people in Idaho are pissed off that so much gets in from Oregon, but I just don't think it's a big issue that's worth trampling on state autonomy over. I don't think anybody would legalize heroin, but if they did or tried to, there would be a ton of political pressure for them not to from other states, and if they somehow overcame that, I just don't think it'd be that bad either. Other states would crack down on drug enforcement and prosecute the traffickers harshly and it wouldn't be that appealing a line of work. THAT kind of tension between states is not a bad thing I don't think, I think that's the kind of thing that leads to progress (different states doing different things, failing and succeeding, as opposed to huge federal legislation which is so hard to evaluate because it's the only reality we know)

Fireworks isn't Heroin.

I don't know how you can feel that way about environmental issues but not others that can impact a neighboring state. Why is smog somehow more important than automatic machine guns?

That's not saying everything should be done on a federal level. States should have the right to make some decisions for themselves. But it is the federal governments job to protect states from other states whether it be environmental or something else. If Wisconsin legalizes hand grenades, that causes problems in Illinois and Minnesota where it is illegal. The actions of Wisconsin in that case harm other states.

Environmental damage can impact us forever, some extra drugs and guns around is a problem that can be managed. We have the lowest violent crime rate in generations and guns and drugs aren't hard to get now.

And what states do you think would legalize heroin and hand grenades? That goes back to that numbers thing. Would you have the same worries if we had fewer states with more people in them? You have no worry about a 300 million person entity legalizing bad stuff, but what if it was two 150 million states, east and west? Where's that cutoff to where we fear a state's power to do stuff?

In addition, we should consider the externalities our drug prohibition produces, such as violence in foreign countries--e.g., Mexico--and even our inner-cities.

None would probably legalize those things. Although I'd imagine some states would legalize some crazy guns if there were not federal regulations on them.

Size isn't the issue, it's with the actions of one entity causing problems to the other entity. Whether that's protecting Illinois from Wisconsin or Israel from Iran. I don't think Wisconsin should be allowed to legalize something like fully automatic machine guns that could negatively impact Illinois. Just as I don't think Iran should be allowed to create nuclear devices that could negatively impact Israel.

Unless you can guarantee it won't hurt the other entity, or the entity legalizing it takes full responsibility, it shouldn't be allowed.