General Discussion
In reply to the discussion: It's his position against the drug war that makes Ron Paul so volcanically controversial here on DU. [View all]Bluenorthwest
(45,319 posts)And why not discuss the Paul policy, which as I said is different. Allow States to regulate as they wish. Sure, it will reduce some aspects of 'drug war' and yet it would allow others to continue under new management.
The point is, 'war on drugs' is term of political art while Ron Paul's policies are actual specific things. So why not discuss what it would actually do if the Feds were out and States were doing what they wanted instead? Why dwell on the marketing name they picked for draconian law enforcement efforts against persons using drugs? The catch phrase 'opposes the war on drugs' does not in fact state what he supports in that area. That is the point.
So you want to say 'war on drugs'. So define, specifically, what Ron Paul's policies in action would look like. Legal, safe, drugs for sale in Salt Lake City? Or a gallows for drug offenders instead?
I agree that the 'war on drugs' is all wrong. And that the Feds are part of what's wrong, and largely the authors. That does not alter the fact that we are speaking of what he proposes, and how that would work. Specifically.
As my post said, Democrats allowed this issue to go so fallow that Paul's position is the only different one out there. This does not mean it is a good position. It is a State's Rights position. One of many things the States could now control without any higher authority.
No one needs Ron Paul to oppose what they like to call their 'Drug War'. In fact, one can do it specifically, and with actual support for national legalization of marijuana and sane regulation and sales of some other drugs.
So sure. The Feds do the driving now. Poorly. Still, are we saying 'no one drives'? Or the States drive, or what? What does Paul's policy include? What other powers do the States now hold, to go with the full sway on drug laws?
Try assuming I know what I'm discussing, and tell me what is Paul discussing. 10 years in, what does US drug law look like, if his policy was in place in DC?