good. usa is the most violent country on this planet at least for the past decade. invading one country after another, stirring up troubles in every part of the world. we wouldn't have half of current troubles if usa just kept the fuck out of everybody's else business. a bit of lessening on military power, closing dozens of bases will do everybody good. another great thing. war against drugs killed thousands of people, costs billions and destroyed lives of millions of people. it is immoral and simply wrong.

What you're suggesting would be kind of like cutting off access to food for somebody that's obese. It doesn't really solve the problem, it just replaces it with one that's even more dangerous.

We got this way because the GOP spent trillions of dollars on stupid things and then crashed the economy. Blaming the Democrats in equal proportion for what was nearly entirely the fault of the GOP is precisely why we're not going to have a working budget anytime soon.

Yeah, well, I should clarify that I like Obama a lot more. And I haven't really studied Ron Paul, or any of the other candidates yet.

But you've got to cut back on the war mongering, and it sounds like the other candidates are just itching to start dropping em' on Teheran.

I'm still not sure whether I see Paul as a political maverick who deserves respect for standing up for positions that aren't popular in his party, or a political clown with lunacy streaks who gets way more media attention than he deserves. However, it stands to reason that even though he may be quite insane, _some_ of his positions are much more reasonable than the warmongering rhetorics of the other candidates. Which is quite scary actually.

What I don't understand is who's funding his campaign. He's running for the fourth time now and each time it was clear from the start that he wouldn't have a chance. Unless he gets lucky and his delegates become the decisive factor in a brokered convention, his whole campaign seems to be a waste of money, there's very little gain in the end.

I agree the war mongering has got to end. However, I also know it will not end in the next presidency. In fact as ever more nations rush to secure resources, I suspect it'll rise sharply for a time.

I think it's the same way as Obama, small donations through a bunch of people accessed through a medium. In this case, internet, the land where nobody can go two minutes without pulling him into a discussion and the people supporting the GOP can't stop and look long enough to realize that almost all of them are going to be harmed by their own policies. But hey, less taxes!!!!

Paul is unique, lets put it that way. I will admit that out of all the Republican candidates he is the most appealing to me. That's just because the conservative field is extremely poor, though. It's like Bush didn't place a single competent person on his cabinet and all we are left with are Congress' rejects and a Mormon.

I would seriously take a look at his economic policy before you vote for him though. He is very radical but he is radical all over the place, both left and right, which is what makes him so attractive to such a wide demographic, yet unappealing to the rank and file Republicans.

His radical ideas have almost no support, and if Obama couldn't get anything done even when he had Democratic majority in Congress you can bet that a Ron Paul administration would be even more crippled. So I'm not afraid of him screwing things up, more being completely powerless.

But this is all hypothetical as he is currently last in the Republican polls. He might run as a Libertarian when he loses the Republican nomination but that would be a godsend for Obama. He is also in his 70s, so unless he pulls a Strom Thurmond his electoral career is basically over. My point is don't get too attached to him, the future of the Republican Party lies elsewhere unfortunately.

Then we should arrest them for hurting others, not because they're taking drugs. Alcohol is the most deadly drug, so why don't we outlaw that? Guns don't kill people, people kill people, except apply that to drugs. Suicide is whole other issue and I don't really know how I feel about yet. On one hand it is a choice, on the other it affects those around you deeply.

Edit: Fixed QC's beef

Ron Paul is the only candidate in either party fighting for minority rights.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jn1pQHoiVgY

You know, you were holding your own there for a while. Then you went and said we should arrest the guys not taking drugs. Yes, I know what you meant. But your writing suggests it both ways.
I agree, nobody
http://www.newschannel5.com/story/15912398/democrats-plan-statewide-push-to-repeal-voter-id-law
Is actively protecting
http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2012/03/voter-id-laws-struck-down-in-texas-wisconsin/
Minority voters. Hell, who will protect
http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/supreme-court-to-hear-challenge-of-arizonas-restrictive-immigration-law/2011/12/12/gIQA4UYepO_story.html
voters who are in this country legally and yet suspected constantly of illegal presence? Or voters who don't have ID's? Hm. Nope, can't think of anyone. Ron Paul.

That's great, so we should wait until there's a direct and provable harm to others before we act on it. This is why I have so little respect for libertarianism. Drugs are dangerous until proven safe. That's always been the case historically, and I see no reason to change that now.

If pot or acid or whatever is safe for ingestion, then the research should bear it out. Suggesting that people should be allowed to use drugs like crack, meth, methadone or ecstasy with very real societal harm is extremely short sighted. Methadone even when used as prescribed for legitimate reasons is still quite dangerous and resulted in more deaths in my home state than any of the other prescribed painkillers.

Pot is less supported than other drugs in terms of societal necessity to keep banned, but when you suggest that all drugs should be legalized, that is an extreme position to take, far more so than what most people would advocate for. Legalizing pot is almost certainly going to happen in the future though.

I agree drugs are dangerous. I don't agree that our current drug war is doing any good though. I think it is doing more harm than good. There are people that still use all those drugs you mentioned anyway. If drugs were legal, I do believe that it would be easier for people to get treatment for dangerous drug use. There is some evidence that attempts to stamp out illicit drug use tend to increase both drug use and drug damage, partly because it publicizes the drugs to a wide audience.

Here are some conclusions from a report that I am currently reading that has a ton of information in it - http://www.druglibrary.org/schaffer/Library/studies/cu/CU68.html

You're really, really looking at a small slice of the evidence out there. Most of the evidence is to the contrary. Don't think just because he wants to abolish the drug war (which would definitely help many minority groups) that he's not also in favor of policies that would royally fuck over the same groups. Ron Paul is for some sort of crazy idealism, and not even the good kind of idealism, people who get in the way of those ideals are just some unfortunate causalities.

I don't like any of the candidates for POTUS and that includes Ron Paul.
The real question is whether the harm is greater or less than the harm caused by current policies. Vancouver BC (I could be wrong on the city, but definitely BC) has a clinic, Insight (Insite?) that simply provides a safe and clean environment for taking drugs, they provide all materials save the drugs themselves. They have tons of ODs but very few deaths thanks to the nursing staff. A few of those people move upstairs to Onsite which is a treatment program, some never do, either is okay. I'm fairly convinced we could legalize drugs and make it safe. Part of the reason meth is such a problem in my state is precisely because drugs are hideously expensive (well, except for pot). We'd likely eliminate some of the nastier crap out there by eliminating the war on drugs.