Ron Paul supports the death penalty for drug offenses.........

[socialist_n_TN]

I also posted this in the Politics 2012 forum.

Worker's Power is doing an article on Ron Paul and I got a look at the unedited draft this morning and this is one of the things that stood out in the article. Paul's "anti drug law" stance is based solely on his SUPPORT of 10th Amendment "State's Rights" argument. Therefore if Mississippi, Tennessee or for that matter, California enacted a law mandating the death penalty for marijuana possession, Paul WOULD HAVE TO BE IN FAVOR OF IT. Ergo, the above statement is just as true as any statement about Paul wanting to get rid of drug laws. That would just be consistent. And Paul is nothing if not consistent.

The article will also delve into his fascist background and links to the American Nazi Party and other fascist offshoots of same. I'll link it when it's available.

[BlueCaliDem]

1. That's why I call Ron Paul a snake oil salesman. eom

[Donald Ian Rankin]

2. This is a classic logical error.

Premise 1: Person X holds position Y.
Premise 2: Position Y logically implies position Z.
Conclusion: Therefore person X holds position Z.

The fallacy, of course, is that even if both premises perfectly sound and valid , person X may be wrong about the second one. Taken together, the two premises show that if person X does not support position Z then they are being logically inconsistent, but pretty much everyone is.

[earthside]

3. Worker's Power

Now there is a credible source.

In any event, because Paul or anyone believes, in this case, in allowing a state to choose its own 'penalty' ... it does not therefore mean that that person HAS to be in favor of a particular state's draconian punishment decision.

One could say that if a certain state decides to have no drug penalties whatsoever then Paul WOULD HAVE TO BE IN FAVOR OF IT.

Illogical is illogical, even if the subject is a political figure with whom most of us here disagree.

[OriginalGeek]

4. But isn't that the point of the article?

People are running around all over the place saying Paul ain't so bad because at least he supports legalization. And they are saying that simply because he really only supports a states right to choose legalization and as President he wouldn't get in their way.

So if it's valid to say he supports legalization (I don't think it's valid but I'm not a Paul supporter of any kind) then it's equally valid to say he supports death penalty for drug offenses because he wouldn't stand in the way of a state that wanted to do that.


Now, on a side note, I haven't heard of any state even suggesting that so maybe the whole thing is disingenuous but the moral of the story is definitely: Fuck Ron Paul. Because fuck him.

[cthulu2016]

5. That is a highly flawed argument.

I think the states should have few "states rights" at all, but that opinion doesn't affect whether the line of argument being used is crap.

Do you support a 75% sales tax?

Sales taxes are left to the states. (true)
Most Democrats have no problem with that. (true)
Some state could institute a 75% sales tax. (true)
Democrats support a 75% sales tax. (false)

[OriginalGeek]

7. I'm not saying I think it's avalid argument

I'm saying that's what Paul supporters are doing. Because they want legal pot. (I do too, btw)
And if some want death penalty for drugs, they might get that too IF you go by the same reasoning they decide he supports legalization.


It's why states rights is bullshit. I don't believe states have the right to oppress, kill, legislate hate towards or poison us just because the majority in a state might want it. (or, more likely, the rich in a state have bought support for it and the people just aren't paying attention).

[Spike89]

6. Ron Paul isn't really for legalization

He's been clearly for removing federal laws regulating drugs (both illegal and legal). He simply believes states should have control (but of course that wouldn't work).
The guy is a kook and people are reading way too much into what he does say. In no way would the war on drugs end under a Ron Paul admin., we'd just have to learn to accept a tiny bit (hopefully) of toxins in everything we buy. States would go bankrupt rather than the fed taking care of their war on drug busts. Sure, some states would try and be sane, but I wouldn't bet on it.
State regulation to protect us from toxic additives/quack remedies wouldn't stand the interstate commerce clauses and our safe food and medicines would no longer be so safe. That's a high price to trade for the unlikely premise that absent Federal drug laws the states would end their part in pot prohibition.

[Gregorian]

8. Wow. That's what I call the ultimate BIG government in my life.

He accelerates an infinite amount from his friendly facets. And by doing so loses all votes any liberals would give him, if they're paying attention.

Truly scary.

[TheKentuckian]

9. Of course. If you knew his true mind he'd grant states to punish anything anyway.

Further, he'd allow the corporations to do any damn thing they liked to employees, the habitat, or business practices that "the market" would tolerate and I do mean anything, perhaps grudgingly accepting an individual state's authority to "distort the market" or whatever fables they are selling.

What he is against is Federal authority in this (and about any) matter and in the present reality the spine of the beast from scheduling, to funding, to the really heavy laws.

The only thing of serious importance is to provide sane alternatives to policy outcomes on a handful of positions that a charlatan like Paul (and his even less honest and thoughtful spawn) can pretend, by ceding the ground to a delusional, institutional bigot follower of a stillborn ideology almost inevitably the ideology gains traction no matter how well the individual personalities are dealt with because continued failure which is baked into the cake means credibility is enhanced by sheer pressure of the vacuum.

The market is a poor steward of the rights of the few, the poor, and the powerless, it is nearly as irresponsible to feed that by allowing the perception that only Laissez Fare can end our eternal foreign conflicts as a corporate welfare scam, stop our utterly failed drug war, or the ever increasing war on our civil liberties and privacy.