Rep. Ron Paul (R-Texas) debates actor Stephen Baldwin on CNN’s Larry King Live.
Who makes the more compelling argument?
—–SPECIAL OFFER—–
The Federal Reserve is creating tens of trillions of new dollars, debasing our currency, and silently taxing us all through inflation. With tens of trillions in federal budget deficits on the horizon there is nowhere for the US dollar to go, but down.
Refuse to be a victim of this flawed financial system, buy gold and silver NOW!
Rob Viglione is a Realtor, economic consultant, and manager of a derivatives trading partnership. Rob has written extensively for Seeking Alpha and The Freedom Factory.
16375 Responseshttp%3A%2F%2Ffreedomfactory.skyrocket.me%2Fron-paul-debates-stephen-baldwin-on-marijuana-regulation%2FRon+Paul+Debates+Stephen+Baldwin+on+Marijuana+Regulation2009-03-15+01%3A47%3A33Rob+Viglionehttp%3A%2F%2Ffreedomfactory.skyrocket.me%2F%3Fp%3D1637 to “Ron Paul Debates Stephen Baldwin on Marijuana Regulation”
Thank you for sharing this video clip. It’s great to see a congressman use reason and logic when discussing this issue. It’s an element most of our elected officials are typically lacking.
On that same note, though I value his fear of a “nanny state” I couldn’t help but notice that Ron Paul seems to contradict himself. At first he is completely against prohibition and then he suggests that it should be up to the states to decide if Marijuana should be legalized. If you truly believe that it should up to the individual to decide what is right and wrong, then the state shouldn’t play a part in this decision. Why should state legislature make these decisions for us? Seems like a contradiction to me.
The great thing about Ron Paul is that he’s always consistent. He personally believes in legalizing drugs, but he recognizes that his personal opinion is just that, an opinion.
Legally, he is restricted to decide federal policy, which is limited to federal jurisdiction. Constitutionally, the matter of drug prohibition or legalization should be determined at the state level, which is what Rep. Paul advocates.
If Rep. Paul came out and said he believed the federal government had the right to legalize drugs in every state he’d be contradicting his entire career, which has been advocating limited federal government and a return to Constitutional law. He recognizes that it is none of his business to decide for every state how they should be run.
This was probably one of the best example of what American debate should be (well, up until the very end at least). I think both parties made well grounded arguments. I understand Paul’s stand that federal regulation goes overboard sometimes–as a country our representatives are adept at making mountains out of molehills and, conversely, marbles out of millstones. I would like to say that he had all of his facts straight but unfortunately he does make a comment that he has not heard of anyone being caught driving under the influence of marijuana. I don’t know about elsewhere but here in Texas we have, in addition to “driving while intoxicated”(DWI), a law against “driving under the influence of a controled substance”(DUI). I have heard of many people being ticketed and arrested for this offense. He makes a fairly good argument concerning importing hemp products. But there again we can legalize the production of hemp without legalizing the consumption of illegal drugs–face it, we can eat as much corn and potatoes as we want and drive, but we can’t get tanked on whiskey and vodka and get behind the wheel.
Also, I was very impressed with how Baldwin carried himself. As a confessed Christian (he says he is speaking from a “conservative, faith-based” perspective) he does a good job of sticking to the debate and exhibiting a substantial amount of courtesy and patience (in my opinion he was not given equal speaking time). I appreciated Baldwin’s comments that there is a time and a place for everything–very much a biblical stance. If a person needs any type of medication they should be given it with a prescription from their physician. In my opinion, that should be obvious, and therefore I think Baldwin propounded the best argument.
I think Baldwin’s stance coming from a “biblical perspective” really has no place in the formation of legislation.
The main issues here are the governments role on regulating personal behavior and the cost of the ineffective and unproductive war on drugs. If you support the war on drugs you must ask yourself what is the goal that you hope to achieve. Most often the answer is a) to reduce violence b) to keep drugs off the street c) to help the individual in his or her substance abuse (more often implied than stated).
The answer to all of these points, which Rep. Paul states so well, is that violence is not caused by use of drugs but by the illegal status of drugs only building a massive black market empire. I think we all know that access to drugs is rampant and has not been diminished by the war on drugs. The other issue not so often discussed in depth is that if one is incarcerated for drug use they have no right for rehabilitation and thus the percent of recidivism is astounding.
The only accomplishment of the “war on drugs” is increased violence and an increased national debt.
I do have to commend Baldwin for his courtesy in the speech, and he has good intentions, but his hopes for regulation is far from the reality he would strive to achieve.
That Ron Paul is now at in the realm of debating lesser Baldwins should give people some indication that the “revolution” is winding down. Get on with it.
Thank you for sharing this video clip. It’s great to see a congressman use reason and logic when discussing this issue. It’s an element most of our elected officials are typically lacking.
On that same note, though I value his fear of a “nanny state” I couldn’t help but notice that Ron Paul seems to contradict himself. At first he is completely against prohibition and then he suggests that it should be up to the states to decide if Marijuana should be legalized. If you truly believe that it should up to the individual to decide what is right and wrong, then the state shouldn’t play a part in this decision. Why should state legislature make these decisions for us? Seems like a contradiction to me.
The great thing about Ron Paul is that he’s always consistent. He personally believes in legalizing drugs, but he recognizes that his personal opinion is just that, an opinion.
Legally, he is restricted to decide federal policy, which is limited to federal jurisdiction. Constitutionally, the matter of drug prohibition or legalization should be determined at the state level, which is what Rep. Paul advocates.
If Rep. Paul came out and said he believed the federal government had the right to legalize drugs in every state he’d be contradicting his entire career, which has been advocating limited federal government and a return to Constitutional law. He recognizes that it is none of his business to decide for every state how they should be run.
This was probably one of the best example of what American debate should be (well, up until the very end at least). I think both parties made well grounded arguments. I understand Paul’s stand that federal regulation goes overboard sometimes–as a country our representatives are adept at making mountains out of molehills and, conversely, marbles out of millstones. I would like to say that he had all of his facts straight but unfortunately he does make a comment that he has not heard of anyone being caught driving under the influence of marijuana. I don’t know about elsewhere but here in Texas we have, in addition to “driving while intoxicated”(DWI), a law against “driving under the influence of a controled substance”(DUI). I have heard of many people being ticketed and arrested for this offense. He makes a fairly good argument concerning importing hemp products. But there again we can legalize the production of hemp without legalizing the consumption of illegal drugs–face it, we can eat as much corn and potatoes as we want and drive, but we can’t get tanked on whiskey and vodka and get behind the wheel.
Also, I was very impressed with how Baldwin carried himself. As a confessed Christian (he says he is speaking from a “conservative, faith-based” perspective) he does a good job of sticking to the debate and exhibiting a substantial amount of courtesy and patience (in my opinion he was not given equal speaking time). I appreciated Baldwin’s comments that there is a time and a place for everything–very much a biblical stance. If a person needs any type of medication they should be given it with a prescription from their physician. In my opinion, that should be obvious, and therefore I think Baldwin propounded the best argument.
I think Baldwin’s stance coming from a “biblical perspective” really has no place in the formation of legislation.
The main issues here are the governments role on regulating personal behavior and the cost of the ineffective and unproductive war on drugs. If you support the war on drugs you must ask yourself what is the goal that you hope to achieve. Most often the answer is a) to reduce violence b) to keep drugs off the street c) to help the individual in his or her substance abuse (more often implied than stated).
The answer to all of these points, which Rep. Paul states so well, is that violence is not caused by use of drugs but by the illegal status of drugs only building a massive black market empire. I think we all know that access to drugs is rampant and has not been diminished by the war on drugs. The other issue not so often discussed in depth is that if one is incarcerated for drug use they have no right for rehabilitation and thus the percent of recidivism is astounding.
The only accomplishment of the “war on drugs” is increased violence and an increased national debt.
I do have to commend Baldwin for his courtesy in the speech, and he has good intentions, but his hopes for regulation is far from the reality he would strive to achieve.
That Ron Paul is now at in the realm of debating lesser Baldwins should give people some indication that the “revolution” is winding down. Get on with it.