Free Allegiance Forums

Camaro wrote:QUOTE (Camaro @ Nov 30 2011, 07:05 PM) I'm still behind Paul. I think many people may be surprised by his performance in Iowa.

Im behind Paul too, but Iowa wont do much for him i can promise you that. Even If he does win first place, he needs to win by a wide margin, or i seriously doubt he will get the media coverage and fundraising necessary to win subsequent states.

I also seriously doubt his appeal with conservatives. Its a little silly think he even has a chance when he alienates social conservatives AND national security hawks. He doesnt pander for votes, which is admirable (and why i want him to win) but his pro drug - pro gay marriage stance is just too extreme for the boomer generation.

In a general election, however, i think he would beat Obama easily. But he just wont get that chance.

ron paul's "legalize drugs" idea is naive at best and utterly foolish and stupid at worst

okay, legalize drugs and tax them to get money to help reduce the deficit, good idea on paper, right?

there are problems with it, and let's start by taking a look at the sinaloa cartel, for example

they already have a multi-billion dollar operation in place for the protection of their assets (through raw physical force and bribery of government officials, mostly) as well as for the production and distribution of relevant products in, at the very least, mexico and the united states.

so, the united states legalizes drugs and authorizes the open distribution with applicable tax of marijuana, cocaine, and heroin. the free market magically takes over, competitors come into the field and the government makes tons of money, right?

perhaps

one, an organization like the sinaloa cartel already has the infrastructure in place for smuggling and distributing these products in the first place. if you remove their need, and thus their costs, of "asset protection through raw physical force" (although the cost of this wouldn't *really* be outright removed; this is the equivalent, i feel, of your average american or European corporation's cost of lawyers to protect their operations and measures used to stamp out or remove competition - buyouts, hostile takeovers, and there's also no reason to think that they'd just *completely* stop using so much raw physical force given how well it works in their operations now) and "smuggling and distribution," this would increase their profits! basic economics, right? yes i intentionally left out the cost of "bribery" here - here in the united states we call that "lobbying" and it's a perfectly acceptable business practice

here's the catch with that - the tax on their goods (cocaine, marijuana, heroin) would need to be low enough that they could maintain their enormous profits while being taxed and operating like any other corporation taxed by the united states so they have a reason to actually buy into this system, come to the bargaining table, and let the united states government have a cut of their action. they would also have to assess whether or not they could straight up make even more money with a publically accepted and government-sanctified distribution network rather than the current system they use now.

but wait, virulence, the free market! wouldn't having these things distributed under the free market allow the government to obtain an even bigger cut of these profits and make the sinaloa corporation's operations more difficult to carry out because the competition would drive prices down, make it harder for the sinaloa corporation to profit and force them to come to the table and compete the same way as everyone else? well, no - if the sinaloa corporation can continue to make huge profits, despite the system, off of pedro handing out their pharmaceuticals on the street corner to crackwhore #18, everyone loses - and legalizing those products will likely make that profit even easier because the government will be less inclined (or not able at all) to arrest that crackwhore on charges of drug possession and use, and then throw the bitch a deal for a reduced sentence that nabs them pedro as well and then offer a reduced sentence to pedro that nabs them his distributors but gets pedro shanked in jail and-

you get the idea

tl;dr - legalizing drugs is a stupid, shortsighted idea that will not really solve anything, change anything, or make anything better

except for maybe the sinaloa corporation

I didn't follow it too closely, but I saw a story a couple of months ago with some pretty outrageous statements from old Ron Paul newsletters. Didn't it make the news over there?

9 - 9 - 9

Duckwarrior wrote:QUOTE (Duckwarrior @ Dec 2 2011, 12:14 AM) I didn't follow it too closely, but I saw a story a couple of months ago with some pretty outrageous statements from old Ron Paul newsletters. Didn't it make the news over there?

His early 90s letters?

Yes. There was some stupid stuff in there.

However, I am willing to overlook it based on his rhetoric and voting record during his current 97-current tenure in Congress... and as you know, actions speak louder than words.

NightRychune wrote:QUOTE (NightRychune @ Dec 2 2011, 01:56 AM) ron paul's "legalize drugs" idea is naive at best and utterly foolish and stupid at worst

okay, legalize drugs and tax them to get money to help reduce the deficit, good idea on paper, right?

there are problems with it, and let's start by taking a look at the sinaloa cartel, for example

The idea with "legalize and tax" is that American corporations would be mass-producing blunts by the millions and putting them in pharmacies and supermarket shelves throughout America. Who's gonna buy unlabeled, overpriced @#(! from a drug dealer on a street corner when you can get cheap generic pot along with a few branded varieties right next to the cold medicine? If people want a fancier variety that they think Wal-Mart can't provide, they'll order online from a California dispensary, rather than taking to the streets.It'll pretty much push the cartels out of the pot market, since they can't compete with Pfizer's economies of scale or their distribution infrastructure, and the cartel can't bribe or murder anyone highly-placed enough to get a multinational drug company to stop producing a specific drug.

The problem is that that doesn't really matter at this point. Prohibition gave birth to organized crime in America, but the mafia didn't go away once Prohibition ended - they'd already found other revenue streams to keep them around. Similarly, the cartels don't make as much money from their other activities, but they make enough. They practically control Mexico now, it's not like they're going to wither up and die if drugs are legalized. Police opposition to drugs won't die easy either, since police departments currently enjoy the unique position to seize anything that they think has been used in a drug crime (and only a drug crime) - they'll fight legalization to the end.

None of that's really related to Ron Paul, of course, since he's not really pro-drug - he just thinks the federal government doesn't have the power to outlaw things. If the states want to ban drugs, he won't give a @#(!, he just thinks the federal government shouldn't.

Jimen wrote:QUOTE (Jimen @ Dec 2 2011, 11:31 AM) None of that's really related to Ron Paul, of course, since he's not really pro-drug - he just thinks the federal government doesn't have the power to outlaw things. If the states want to ban drugs, he won't give a @#(!, he just thinks the federal government shouldn't.

+1

Meh. Decriminalizing drugs would just make those cartels into legitimate businesses (with a leg up). You know like the Kennedy clan that made it to President and Senator-For-Life. Yeah, them.

Taxpayer pays for jails---->the law lets dealers make a bunch of money,then busts them and takes the profits. Legalization won't be as profitable for the government.