Since no one else in the pro-drug camp will say it, allow me: Ron Paul is a drug war asshole. He’s a con artist playing a shell game with our liberties with his slippery proposal that the answer to this savage 40-year war on individual liberty is to transfer the power to destroy lives from one authority (federal) to another equally cruel authority (state). In doing so, Dr. Paul has shifted the moral debate about the drug war from one of barbarism and injustice to his crusty old Confederate gripe about states’ rights versus federal authority.
Here’s the latest whoop-tee-doo:
Lawmakers to introduce bill to legalize marijuana
By Luis Robayo | AFP – Wed, 22 Jun, 2011
A group of US representatives plan to introduce legislation that will legalize marijuana and allow states to legislate its use, pro-marijuana groups said Wednesday.
The legislation would limit the federal government’s role in marijuana enforcement to cross-border or inter-state smuggling, and allow people to legally grow, use or sell marijuana in states where it is legal.
The bill, which is expected to be introduced on Thursday by Republican Representative Ron Paul and Democratic Representative Barney Frank, would be the first ever legislation designed to end the federal ban on marijuana.
This is a moral issue, plain and simple. And there’s nothing moral about providing federal cover for barbarism at the state level. The reason why America forced the South at bayonet-point to dismantle its racist Jim Crow laws is because those Jim Crow laws were immoral, unjust and barbaric, and Washington either had to force the South to dismantle its racist laws, or else be a party to them by providing federal aid and protection to racist states. Until the Civil Rights legislation of the 60s, all of America was an accessory to that injustice, protecting, aiding and abetting crimes against humanity.
Millions of Americans have been locked up, their lives destroyed, merely for choosing to relieve the pain of existence via something more sublime (opiates, amphetamines) than that shit peasant drug alcohol they feed us. It’s a violation of the Declaration of Independence, the founding document for this country, which enshrines the “pursuit of happiness” as a sacred right of all Americans. This should be simple for libertarians to accept, and simple for them to say, “It’s as evil to oppress non-violent drug-users at the state level as it is at the federal level.” So say it!
Drug decriminalization is an old cause of the Left, who’ve been pushing for legalization long before the Kochs created their “right-wing hippies” and hitched them aboard the marijuana legalization bandwagon in order to Trojan Horse the Kochs’ free-market program. It’s one thing to form an alliance with libertarians when they’re taking what may appear to be a better practical stance on the drug war than their Republican allies (and most Democrats, for that matter). But for fuck’s sake, don’t roll over and scream like Justin Bieber fangirls just because Ron Paul said something that goes about 1/100th of the way towards drug de-criminalization.
Don’t cede the moral ground on the drug issue to the libertarians, because they’ve sucked the morality out of it by turning it into a States’ Rights issue.
Not unless the libertarians can explain why it’s bad for Washington to lock up a non-violent drug user, but perfectly fine for Alabama or Tennessee or Oklahoma to deprive a pot smoker or meth drinker or smack snorter of their liberty, and shove them into a rape camp prison system, even though they hurt no one at all, least of all themselves.
No one in America, not at the federal, state, county, municipal level, should be legally kidnapped, raped and pressed into slave labor just because they took drugs in the privacy of their own home. Period. And anyone who thinks it makes sense for states to do so, but not Washington, is a raging baboon asshole.
One more thing: This goes out to all of you Weed-Nazis out there. You better not be planning to do what I think you’re going to do once you get your foot another inch or two inside the respectably-legal door: You better not turn around and slam that door on every other drug-user’s face. Because I know that’s what you filthy pot-heads are planning. As all drug users know, Weed-Nazis are the most duplicitous, moralizing blowhards of all drug users. They never shuttup about their idiotic moral categories, ranking marijuana as a “soft drug” as opposed to “bad” “hard” drugs like meth and opiates.
Marijuana is for dumbshits; it makes dumbshits feel creative. In a charitable moment, I’d be okay with giving dumbshits that chance to experience a false sense of purpose on this planet, but the thing is, those of us with more refined drug tastes, with more advanced cognitive powers, know that marijuana is one of GAIA’s most terrifying booby-traps she ever set. THC equals pure terror and paranoia. Which is why I’m all for imposing a federal death penalty on anyone caught using marijuana or referring to it as a “soft drug” in public, or in the privacy of their own homes. That is, unless the Weed-Nazis are on board with an all-or-nothing drug decriminalization program.
Now, one area where Dr. Paul and I can agree on is that heroin should definitely, definitely be de-criminalized. Or so he said at that debate that had all the Confederate hillbillies a-whoopin’ and a-hollerin’.
Yeah, that was pretty cool–I think Dr. Paul, as a “Doctor” who served in Vietnam, knows what the deal is: “Who in this room would run and use heroin if it was decriminalized?” Dr. Paul yammered to the hicks–and if you noticed carefully, you could see Dr. Paul actually putting his hand up as if to say, “Hey, I can name that Doctor in two notes!” and then suddenly Dr. Paul’s eyes got that crazed junkie jones stare to them. He done near stole my heart with that heroin performance. It’s like we all were given a rare glimpse of the younger Dr. Paul, the Dr. Paul circa-1969, when he first learned the virtue of rational self-interest out on the Vietnam battlefield. Triage situation: Dr. Paul is tending to the Immediates…one guy’s guts are wrapped around a nearby tree trunk, his legs a quivering pair of charred stumps…Dr. Paul’s body aches at the sight of this goner; Dr. Paul uncorks a morphine syringe, flicks it, and thinks, “Why waste good clean shit on worm food like this poor bastard? That’d make no rational sense.” So Dr. Paul crouches in the tall grass and pops the morphine into his own shoulder. The warm rush leads Dr. Paul to another rational thought: so he uncorks another morphine syringe, and sticks himself a second time…Next thing you know, those screams and cries for “Medic!” fade into the great big void…
“Doctor Paul, we thought we lost you! What’s the status of your–um, Dr. Paul?”
“Zzzzzz…”
“Oh jeez. Dr. Paul, you’re drooling on that soldier’s small intestines. Didn’t we already discuss this problem last week?”
“Zzzzzz…”
Next thing you know, the Hell of Nam fades from Dr. Paul’s consciousness, the government’s attempts to interfere in his buzz replaced by dreams bathed in gold: Golden light, Golden unicorns, Golden brown…Hey, how about a gold standard!
Whoa, where was I? Oh yeah: Until the libertarians and the Weed-Nazis concede that the drug war is a human rights issue about ending the immoral and barbaric practice of forcing drug users into rape-camps everywhere on American soil, rather than another one of their sleazy States Rights campaigns–until I hear that, and until I hear the Weed-Nazis fight for de-criminalization of all drugs, not just filthy marijuana–until then, I want no part in this.
Devolving tyranny to the states–and adding one shitty drug to the “legalized” list while oppressing the rest– is just drug-fascism by another name.
Would you like to know more? Read “The Gold-Standard Hustle: Does Anyone Here Speak Paul-tard?”
Buy The eXile: Sex, Drugs and Libel in the New Russia co-authored by Mark Ames and Matt Taibbi (Grove Press).
Click the cover & buy the book!
Read more: heroin, libertard, libertarian, libertarianism, marijuana, ron paul, slave labor, states rights, triage, vietnam, war on drugs, Mark Ames, Health & Lifestyle
Got something to say to us? Then send us a letter.
Want us to stick around? Donate to The eXiled.
Twitter twerps can follow us at twitter.com/exiledonline
111 Comments
Add your own1. lk | June 23rd, 2011 at 12:25 pm
Ron Paul has, and no federal official has, any power over the states. But a number of states have lower penalties for certain drugs than federal law has, and at least the options are open to lobby your state if the federal law is removed.
Your twisting to make this a bad thing is really absurd.
2. Mike C. | June 23rd, 2011 at 12:42 pm
Yep. States’ rights are total bullshit. As long as any individual is subject to coercion, at any level — national, state, city, town… family? — their rhetoric is pure fantasy.
How do they plan on bringing liberty to people by shifting power to ever worse hands?
Privatization is just opaque, hierarchical tyranny. States’ rights, in theory, would make adjustments to local laws suit the populace. In practice, it just removes whatever baseline humanity was imposed on provincial hicks to stop them enacting their most brutal and bigoted policies.
You have idiotic places where the constitution competes with leviticus for legislative guidance; there are smart ass judicial pricks who’d like to throw kids in prison on a whim (for fun and profit), or force residents into Faustian deals with corporations.
3. Trevor | June 23rd, 2011 at 12:55 pm
Ron Paul has got to be the most insidious creature in modern politics. He rode the anti-war wave to national stardom and everyone’s too hypnotized to see this guy is one of the most reactionary crazies in the whole GOP. “Ban state education and ban abortions!” Yeah, that there’s a real “freedom” candidate.
4. Robert S | June 23rd, 2011 at 1:10 pm
Ron Paul has an interesting role in American politics. He acts as a lightening rod for a certain tangent group of American whites that know instinctively (and correctly, even though they often cannot elucidate what they know) they are being slowly crushed by the powers that be.
The problem is, he is a politician; and therefore, in my mind, a hopeless case. Seeking power over others by duplicity and glibness, which is what western politicians do, is a brain disease.
Therefore I don’t give a flying fuck about Ron; and nothing changes at this stage, where people still seek Hope in their politicians.
Mark, you give marijuana short shrift. Apparently, it makes you paranoid. Me too, in the wrong setting. But it is a good pastime and in my venue it is hard to get the good pharmas. The distillations available at the clubs in the S.F. Bay Area are remarkable. Recommended!
5. hon kee | June 23rd, 2011 at 1:19 pm
it just comes back to the fact that across-the-board drug legalization will never ever happen. our only hope is to crack the door open a little–legal pot in a handful of blue states–point out that there is no blood in the streets, and proceed from there.
but you’re right, it is a human rights issue, not just in throwing drug users in prison but in is restricting access to drugs in the first place. why should i have to fake a “disorder” just to get the same amphetamines handed out daily to millions of schoolchildren? how dare anyone deprive people of something as profound and potentially life-changing as the mdma or tryptamine experiences?
6. _sports__talk_666 | June 23rd, 2011 at 1:21 pm
I think the Weed-Nazis are right because dude I’m totally, totally baked on some stinky sticky bud, duuuhuhuhude! Shit, maybe if I didn’t smoke so much fucking weed I’d someday wind up glorified in Vanity Fair or on TV like Mark Ames, but you know, I’m just too busy smoking my fucking weed and giggling. Oh shit, hold on, my mom’s calling. I wish she’d leave me alone. She’s like the government, she just won’t stop interfering in my business, she thinks just because she owns the garage that I converted into a private bedroom, somehow she has the right to tell me what to do.
7. spark | June 23rd, 2011 at 1:43 pm
So true about weed nazis. Is there anything at all lower than a fucking weed addict?
8. Zirb | June 23rd, 2011 at 3:39 pm
I’m a Ron Paul fan, but must say that I completely agree with this article. Portugal decriminalized all drugs in 2001 and things got better and they used the police/prison money on helping out drug users that wanted help.
But this: “… the Kochs created their ‘right-wing hippies” and hitched them aboard the marijuana legalization bandwagon in…”
You have entered some kind of anti-Koch conspiracy psychosis. Yes, Kochs are fascists, but they’re not everywhere. Remember the “liber” in libertard stands for liberty? The whole idea is that people should be able to do anything that doesn’t hurt others.
9. Rechavia Berman | June 23rd, 2011 at 3:40 pm
lk – a number of states do, and a number of others send you away for 10 years for a couple of joints. What was your point again?
10. Rechavia Berman | June 23rd, 2011 at 3:43 pm
Oh, and Mark – I agree about Gold Brick Boy (Ron Paul), but you can keep your more “sophisticated” drugs. I’ll stick with the good herb, and you can look down on me all you want as your digestion system (or septum) are eaten away by your drug of choice…
11. Rechavia Berman | June 23rd, 2011 at 4:19 pm
“it just comes back to the fact that across-the-board drug legalization will never ever happen.”
They did it in Portugal. Not legalization, but decriminalization – which is most of the problem. Sure it’d be nice to freely buy some weed (or for Mark, some crappy white powder…) from someone who won’t get punished for selling it, but as long as no-one’s life is ruined for merely using the drug of their choice, that’s a huh-yooooge improvement over now.
12. King Mob | June 23rd, 2011 at 4:19 pm
I agree Ron Paul’s emphasis on states rights is stupid. But whether you think he’s a kook or not, this is certainly a positive move.
13. PlataOrPlumo | June 23rd, 2011 at 4:22 pm
ive been saying this all along. So basically one state can impose lets say the death penalty for heroin use, and the other state can impose a all is legal for taxation model? aahhh Ron Paul you clever bastard…your a trojan horse.
14. brian | June 23rd, 2011 at 4:34 pm
Wouldn’t moving the issue to the states mean there was smaller budgets to pursue drug users, therefore less importance placed on prosecuting harmless users? From a pragmatic perspective, state control seems better, Please educate this moron stoner.
15. Me, me, me | June 23rd, 2011 at 4:39 pm
I doubt the driving force behind the anti abolitionism movement was morality. More likely it was the fact that the industrial North had moved from the slave model to the worker/consumer/soldier model, as it suited its interests better. Furthermore, a decentralized, confederate model likely went against their imperial plans. Morality merely provided a casus belli, like the “freedom” of Iraqis, specially “freedom from” their oil.
I find it interesting that the aggressively imperialist American Right ( I’m not American myself, but your politics is fascinating to watch) turns it back on science and now, education ( attacking teachers ) in a world were the two are indispensable for any ambitious industrial power. If the religious right had their way, America would go the way of isolationist, fundamentalist regimes, in the Islamic style I bet they secretly admire and envy. It’s the neocon dilemma: world domination today requires a light touch, Bill Clinton style, but they get their support from fundies who want nothing with the world, who’d be happy in the security and familiarity of their states, ruled by white Christians. Fundies that the neocons might lose control of. The Middle East wars satisfy their crusading, belligerent instincts, but also confirm their suspicions that the outside world is a strange, hostile place. Even the US is too big and strange for them, what with all those liberals, hippies, lefties, black and women who “don’t know their place” and immigrants. Liberals have failed to enlighten the red states; maybe leaving them in their states to their own devices might be, short of secession, the best solution. Their alienation, their fear,their longing for the old days, should be apparent to people who call themselves progressive, but these progressives are oblivious to the feeling of what are, to a great extent, working class people. Maybe these progressives suffer a fundamentalism of their own?
16. Duarte Guerreiro | June 23rd, 2011 at 4:47 pm
Appeal to morality? In my Exiled? It’s more likely than you think.
For a bit there I thought I was reading something written by Chris Hedges… What’s the matter Ames, finding it harder to hold onto that youthful nihilism? Finding that the good old judeo-christian blood is boiling ever hotter with the passing years, the moral indignation spilling over, that call from Jehovah demanding the skulls of the enemy tribals?
Nice freeze frame of Ron, by the way.
17. Duarte Guerreiro | June 23rd, 2011 at 5:12 pm
By the way, now that my country’s name is being thrown around as an example of a decent drug policy, here is the deal with it from someone who saw it start a couple decades ago:
You entered Lisbon from the main bridge over the Tagus river, the first thing you saw left and right were slums, a place called Casal Ventoso which you were warned never, ever to visit, stretching everywhere like a fungus, growing larger by the year. During that time, Portugal had some of the worst ‘substance abuse’ problems in Europe. One of the crucial things you have to understand about the turnaround is that most of the people here are poor, our economic inequality is on par with Mexico. So when people saw the skeleton junkies parking cars, they didn’t think “those people”, they thought “there go I (or my son, or daughter, or brother) but for the grace of God”.
When the proposal came to decriminalize and set up systems to help the addicts, the people were behind it, because they knew and pitied them. The right made a token effort to oppose on grounds of moral indignation and being tough on crime but it never got much traction. Most politicians were happy enough with saving money on the prison system (more for their pockets).
Fast forward 20 years, and things got really better. That slum is still there when you enter Lisbon but every year it seems to grow smaller, the gray colors slowly receding.
Now, if you are a drug lover, that doesn’t mean you can get decent drugs at decent prices. It just means you won’t go to jail or pay fines if caught with ‘personal use’ amounts. Since they are illegal to sell and distribute, you still run the risk of buying shitty drugs.
I think the distinction between “them” and “us” is still the main enemy of decriminalization in the US. I mean, a big part of why drug prohibition started in the first place was racism, with those crazy negroes working the docks taking cocaine and becoming maniac white wimmin raping beastmen.
18. helplesscase | June 23rd, 2011 at 5:18 pm
States rights is a great compromise. Middle Americans will be free to do what they’ve always wanted, which is to turn their homes into Dominionist hellholes, and us coastal types can finish building our welfare states without being constantly interrupted by screeching and wailing about the gays or “fiscal responsibility” or drug users or whatever else those useless Protestant nut-cases care about.
19. riley | June 23rd, 2011 at 5:26 pm
Robert S (comment 4) is right about you giving short shrift to weed. THC is one of many chemicals produced by cannabis. Do a google search for CBD – you’ll learn something. Anxiety and paranoia only show up in carelessly grown varieties of pot. The SF Bay Area and LA medical scenes thrive off of well-grown stuff. It’s a complete joke to say that opiates or amphetamines are superior. They’re loads of fun, and they have their practical uses. But I don’t want to take benzos or opiates just to get me to sleep, or amphetamines just to make work suck less.
IMO, someone with truly “refined” tastes in drugs chooses high-purity hash oil/wax. There’s some paranoia, because it’s a crazy rush, but you learn how to eliminate it, if you truly have ADVANCED COGNITIVE POWERS. Super soft comedown, no crash, very tolerant tolerance, and you can binge away to your heart’s content and emerge with your bodily organs intact. Or maybe I’m just a weed nazi. Keep chasin’ them shadows! Even the pot smokers are out to get you!
20. Mike C. | June 23rd, 2011 at 5:56 pm
@15
The right has no claim on being working class. Their leadership is even more elitist than the left’s, and there are plenty of working class leftists.
It sucks that people are still operating here based on a caricature of the country.
21. Ozinator | June 23rd, 2011 at 6:10 pm
GREAT article!
I liked it all and this is the first time that anyone has said what I felt about out of the closet pot smokers. Well done, Mate
22. az | June 23rd, 2011 at 6:25 pm
So who is going to support a position like this, politically? At least the weed-heads are numerous enough and have enough money (via living with parents) to have political initiatives. People on stuff like meth and heroin tend to be too scared or poor to actually stand up for themselves. Or hypocritical I guess like in the case of hop head Rush.
23. Tyler Bass | June 23rd, 2011 at 6:51 pm
Got to start somewhere.
24. motorfirebox | June 23rd, 2011 at 7:20 pm
Well, Paul Jr. has already come out in favor of privatizing segregation law.
25. wYSe Guy | June 23rd, 2011 at 7:25 pm
adding one shitty drug to the “legalized” list while oppressing the rest– is just drug-fascism by another name
Wow Ames, touchy, touchy.
26. John Drinkwater | June 23rd, 2011 at 8:07 pm
I’m surprised Ron Paul supports legislation that would add another tax. Tax weed? That’s a regressive tax to boot. No. Make sure it’s good shit and sell it at cost. All drugs, of course, should be legalized, regulated for purity and sold at cost. If the government needs money, cut the military and tax the rich directly. Leave the drug users and alcoholics alone.
27. Plamen | June 23rd, 2011 at 8:39 pm
wow another devil’s advocate article against the ultimate devil’s advocate in politics.
hyperbole, insults and plain bullshit dont a good article make, Ames.
28. Vendetta | June 23rd, 2011 at 9:50 pm
Ames, I know it’s not what you intend, but this one seems to comes off as satire of the point you’re trying to make.
29. The Big Floppy Boot | June 23rd, 2011 at 10:30 pm
There’s no way this shit is gonna pass, but that’s not the aim. It’s a trap! All those fucked in the head republicans who howled about “state’s rights” when the healthcare deal was being mauled by our quisling government will now turn on a dime and swear to god that state’s rights mean shit where marijuana is concerned, and how vital it is for the federal government to remain asshole deep in legislating/dictating what the people are permitted to do for a buzz. That’s all Paul’s in it for, to show what shitbirds those hypocritical asshats are.
30. obvious | June 23rd, 2011 at 11:10 pm
ron paul has respect for the procedure by which presidents are allowed to change the way laws are enforced. should the president have the authority to declare that all drugs are legal in every state? is it desirable to empower the president to invalidate state and local laws at will? if the president wants to follow the procedural rules for legislating at the federal level, the best he can do legally is change the way federal laws are enforced. he could stop using the DEA to raid CA pot operations (like Obama), stop revoking federal loans to students, homeowners/renters, etc. who are arrested for possession (like Obama), and de-fund or eliminate the myriad federal programs that screw over drug users. after he does this (ie reaches the extent of his legal authority), the option to continue prohibition is left up to states. unless you’re willing to say the president should be able to invalidate state or local laws at will, this is the best that a president can do in a legally justifiable way. and the jim crowe argument doesn’t address this because jim crowe laws were overturned by SCOTUS and legislated away in congress. neither of those methods seem feasible for overturning prohibition, so we’re left with the demand that ron paul wave his magic executive order wand and usurp all kinds of authority for the president a la bush 2.
31. Michal | June 23rd, 2011 at 11:31 pm
You had me laughing out loud when I read the vietnam scene.
32. RobertD | June 24th, 2011 at 12:31 am
While I completely agree that legalisation of all recreational drugs is necessary, it shouldn’t be necessary to make shit up about cannabis in order to justify using other drugs.
[i]”marijuana is one of GAIA’s most terrifying booby-traps she ever set. THC equals pure terror and paranoia.”[/i]
This, quite frankly, is utter nonsense.
True enough, self righteous weed puritans might be incredibly annoying, while suburban slackster stoners might be a complete waste of space, but it is possible to enjoy the drug without having to fit the stereotype.
Anyway, it’s all about the variety. Amphetamine is great for some circumstances but not so great for others. Same as weed. One of the biggest damn problems with drug criminalisation is that you can’t always score for the particular drug you want on any given day. Or worse, you can’t score for anything, and turn to the bottle…
33. Mikey Khodorkovsky | June 24th, 2011 at 12:46 am
Hey, we had all the weed we wanted in the Matrosskaya Tishina slam. But now that faggot Putin put me on board a fuckin ’72 VW for Karelia. Now, where in the hell can you get decent weed in fuckin Karelia? One answer – nowhere! They smoke fuckin live reindeer in fuckin Karelia. I can just see it now: until I get out (2016), all I’m gonna hear is “Light up another Rudolf, Mikey. Dedmoroz (Santa) is on his way.”
. . . мою задницу до смерти!
34. Cum | June 24th, 2011 at 3:18 am
Amphetamines gave me an ulcer, make me nauseated, and make me paranoid, though I sometimes got work done. Cannabis relaxes the muscles, liberates the mind, soothes the pain, and makes me want to eat again.
Sorry that the pangs of withdrawal are making you cranky but don’t take it out on the pot smokers. You cry about needing to prove your worth through elitism, which perhaps explains the snorty insults, but cannabis is the drug of choice for the discriminating flavor connoisseur.
Though I bet with your refined tastes you prefer the drip. Talk about a filthy drug.
Love you
35. Scott Stewart | June 24th, 2011 at 6:25 am
Mark, you’re fucking nit-picking. Don’t get nervous because the only person in congress yelling “the empire has no clothes” isn’t your blend of hipster.
The media is painting him a raving lunatic because he’s the only one on the inside willing to call the log rolling circus of congress and lobbyists what it really is, a civic train-wreck. The media moderates the whole affair by making sure the participants all worship at the alter of public opinion and that ain’t cheap.
Yeah Paul’s crotchety and irascible, but as you know, that comes with telling people what they don’t want to hear. You of all people should know that. The difference between an honest person and an asshole depends on whom the truth hurts. If that’s the case, the media, K Street special interests and all of congress will agree with you, Ron Paul is an asshole. I only wish we had more of those kind of assholes in Washington.
36. itstrue | June 24th, 2011 at 9:23 am
A lot of people don’t like weed because it makes them feel “paranoid” or just doesn’t do anything at all. It’s a chemical difference in the brain just like how some people go to sleep after a few drinks (like me) and some people go all night on just booze, I’ll never understand that. I do understand the anger against “weed nazis” but these days, there are few people who smoke weed who don’t do anything else; acid, mushrooms, and ecstasy mostly – maybe it’s a California thing, old hippies, but I know hardly any young people who support legalization of pot and only pot. I’d just like to ask the eXiled people not to be so hard on weed – it doesn’t turn us all into babbling idiots nor does everyone who takes it think they are smarter or more creative as a result. Some of us simply prefer it to alcohol as a social drug whereas the harder drugs seem like they put you in your own little world rather than connecting you to others. I guess that’s why hardcore cynics and people haters like the eXiled team prefer them. I love you guys, I appreciate what you’re doing so much, but I could never be one of you. Maybe that makes me a sucker and an asshole, but at least I’m not a weed nazi – support legalization of all drugs and the reform of our prison system!
37. brninthayoosghy | June 24th, 2011 at 10:22 am
If their state is being an ass, they can move to another state. If the restriction is federal, they can’t do that. Checks and balances. States are a safeguard. Would you really want another Reagan or Bush to have complete and utter control over America? Think about what you’re advocating for a second.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nullification_%28U.S._Constitution%29 (Mostly used by Free States to help fugitive slaves when Slave States held the White House, especially after slavery was all but introduced to the federal level in 1850.)
38. HS | June 24th, 2011 at 1:27 pm
I won’t knock anyone for chosing weed. However, I agree with your contempt for those who would use weed now while opposing legalization of all drugs.
Either the government knows better than the citizen what belongs in their bodies or it doesn’t. If it does, put down your bong and accept the decisions of the wise masters. If it doesn’t then the meth heads have as much right as you do to reject their decisions.
39. Mike C. | June 24th, 2011 at 1:31 pm
The problem isn’t that Paul is some kind of ornery firebrand, and he’s not talking up the right drugs. He’s doing the same shit he’s always done: kissing up to the tyrannical wet dream of states’ rights.
Giving more autonomy to many states will open the floodgates on all the idiotic fantasy legislation hitherto kept in check by some of the basic humanity imposed upon them by prominently-won federal laws.
Even if it means _legalizing_ it in California, say, but what about places like these?
http://tinyurl.com/62fr7uf
He’s winking to the pot people (and others, to some extent, though they’re probably less optimistic), saying they can be hands-off about it; meanwhile, he’s nudging the fascists, saying, “Now you can do whatever you want to those fucking hippies in YOUR state.”
That’s a brilliant way to ride the fence; blustering about all these “daring” maneuvers, while letting everyone decide how the implications favor themselves. It’s the same deal as anarchy — no one imagines themselves dead, their family sold into slavery within the first ten minutes, by warlords and militias. Everybody thinks they’ll wind up some bad ass, because they have a pistol grip shotgun.
The trouble with pot smokers is they can taste mainstream approval. They’re the guy who gets into the secret society (frat), and ditches his original friends at the group’s behest. Once middle America acknowledges their rights, some will be sucked up into the mainstream, and wind up as anti-everything else as alcoholics and straight-edgers.
This is a generalization; not everyone is like this; there’s a lot of cross-pollination out there, so I’m talking hardcore, religiously pot-only people.
40. Daniel | June 24th, 2011 at 4:01 pm
Ames,
You’re just finding excuses to rant about Southerners at this point. Please stop. The Civil War is over. The North won. Small side-effect: huge collection of power at the Federal level. Show me long-term historical examples of highly concentrated Federal (or National-level) government increasing individual rights, absent the risk of riots or some other crisis of stability. You’ll find far more examples of the opposite. The more concentrated power, the more that power is used not to guarantee individual freedom, but to guarantee control. History is clear on this.
The reality is, if you believe that individual rights are precious, but you are wary of anarchy or rampant libertarianism, then you need some form of more local government that is not as concentrated as the Federal government, but is concentrated enough to resist it when the Federal government is acting stupid. Something like States. With rights and powers and differing opinions. Stop turning States Rights into a catch-phrase boogeyman like “Nazi”. It’s not the same thing. In fact, it’s almost comical how much those two principles contrast.
What exactly is your proposed solution? A benevolent, philosophical, rational Federal government? Show me one. A forceful, bold Federal government that acts on its own interpretation of morality? I give it six months before it backfires on you, and you find yourself subject to wiretaps, illegal search and seizure, etc. A wise Judiciary that overturns laws based on the moral views of its members? At best, they’ll just punt the issue as a political one. At worst, they’ll have moral views that are sold to the highest bidder and result in further concentrations of power. A Federal Legislature that works cooperatively to look at facts and principles in a well-reasoned fashion? Don’t make me laugh. A glorious peasant revolt for drug legalization? It will fail for multiple reasons, chief among them that large, powerful federal governments hate glorious peasant revolts and will do almost anything to stop them.
Maybe you should give those States a try, complete with their States’ Rights.
As an aside, you would be wise not to conflate the morality of voting rights with the morality of legalizing drugs. Democracy is predicated on the former, but not the latter. Good luck winning over the Supreme Court on that moral argument of yours.
Finally, your disgust with the entire South is well-documented (http://www.exile.ru/articles/detail.php?ARTICLE_ID=7233&IBLOCK_ID=35). Rather than go to the your extremes (by, perhaps, writing an article suggesting that you go fuck yourself while your hometown is burned and property is confiscated by an excessively powerful Federal Government), I’ll suggest instead that you grow up a little, revise your understanding of a healthy Federalist system, and recognize that once in a while, a Republican from Texas can have a more well-thought-out plan for individual liberty than you.
Oh, and by the way, if you’re reading this all the way through and you’re thinking to yourself, “Wait a minute, this guy wrote all this over-edited comment text, and never once addressed Ames’ main point: which is that states can be just as tyrannical, if not more tyrannical, than the Federal Government–that it was the federal government and not the state governments that ended slavery and segregation, it was the federal government not the states that improved the plight of labor, and so it will have to be with the drug war evil. What’s going on here? Why did this guy say nothing about the evil states do if left to their own? Why is he misrepresenting Ames’ piece and whining like a wounded bitch?” If you’re thinking that to yourself, then please let me know, because this sockpuppet 3.0 program warned me this might happen when it generated this libertard response.
41. Daniel | June 24th, 2011 at 4:49 pm
Thank you for improving my comment by your divine editing. You’re cute.
In the spirit of debate, and mopping the floor with your attempted comeback, I’ll respond to your criticism.
Mark Ames you win.
P.S. I’ve endeavored to stick.
42. motorfirebox | June 24th, 2011 at 4:53 pm
States’ rights would be a less bullshit rally cry if so many of its advocates weren’t also advocating xenophobia and racism. We’re being given a choice between allowing power to continue consolidating under the Federal government, or allowing mouthbreathing assholes to refuse service to brown people.
43. super390 | June 24th, 2011 at 6:16 pm
Ron Paul’s essential, core argument is:
We were better off in the 19th Century than in the 20th.
Well, were we?
Or has he rigged his definition of liberty to apply to only what a certain cultural and demographic faction values?
Ron Paul doesn’t think a pregnant woman has the liberty to have an abortion. He doesn’t think that blacks have the liberty to vote if a state legislature rules otherwise. He doesn’t think the poor have the liberty to do anything but work and starve, as they so often did in his laissez-faire 1800s paradise despite the then-availability of plenty of Indian land to steal.
Mahatma Gandhi said that poverty was the worst form of oppression. Obviously he defined liberty differently than our libertarians do, because libertarians define liberty exactly as white male straight Protestants defined it in the 19th Century, and in the evil 20th Century, everyone else gained a say in the matter, leading to a very complicated world of warring interests and tons of regulations. But I would burn down this continent and expunge it of all life rather than bring back the society that used to exist in America, where the owners defined all they desired as liberty, and all I demand as license.
Which I guess is why in that libertarian paradise, the National Guard was ordered to battle striking workers an average of twice a year every year from 1865 to 1941. Doesn’t sound like folks felt very free back then, did they?
44. Daniel | June 24th, 2011 at 6:27 pm
Ames,
How me whining like a wounded bitch? Your drugs philosophically with the world. I have a fistula in that my mother squeezed on my back.
And your readers’ comments. The current one sucks.
45. TheLounge | June 24th, 2011 at 10:21 pm
This is a problem with ALL libertarians. They all claim that drugs, gays, abortion, etc. are state problems. This is the same code language used by Jim Crow apologists. It’s a position of false agnosticism. What does the size of the political unit have to do with these kinds of questions?
46. aaaaa | June 25th, 2011 at 12:57 am
the plan for a Freer America: be a drama queen pretending to be offended by the TSA, glorify a corporate free-market Confederate tool like ron paul just because he wants states rights to oppress drug users which is a more liberal drug policy than any president in the last century. plus go into comments sections when you’re wounded and angry like me or my pr firm client and become a kochwhore sockpuppet… glenn greenwald of the libertard cato institute is a progressive poseur, guys… hey a quick shout out to my astroturf tea party paultard homies… aaaand hey do you think if i repeat the fact that i’m a kochwhore that finally youll leave us alone and be done, ames? i wish no one would notice you, why do you keep getting on tv, why do vanity fair and others glorify you, why am i a resentful kochwhore commenter while youre fighting slugs like my bosses and getting famous for it? why am i such a worm? oh, right, i read my ayn rand, now i remember: it’s because i’m john galt and you’re not!
kill me, please
47. Cleaning lady | June 25th, 2011 at 3:28 am
This is why Ames gets on MSNBC and published in Vanity Fair and i’m a commenter
48. Marcus McSpartacus | June 25th, 2011 at 3:30 am
Ah bullshit. This is not Euoo-rope. You don’t have to learn Dutch, or get a visa, to move to San Francisco from Hicksville if you want to do dope. It’s America – just get in a goddamn car and drive; move state/county and stop being fucking cry-babies.
Then again, maybe everyone in America should get in a goddamn airplane and move to Holland , stop being fucking crybabies it’s the global economy we live in. how hard is it to just move with your family to avoid being jailed and raped over drug use? it’s totally easy, every time my parents move i move with them. in fact, that was my attitude towards blacks in the south in the jim crow days: “It’s America, just get in a goodamn car and drive to San Francisco. Stop being fucking cry babies.”
Hey, do I “get it” or what?!
49. The Big Floppy Boot | June 25th, 2011 at 10:07 am
Amsterdam may be falling off the ready line. I hear they’re fixin’ to pass some sorta no-tourists-in-the-drug-dens rule.
50. motorfirebox | June 25th, 2011 at 10:57 am
After thinking about it, I don’t fully agree with the article. Yes, Paul’s states’ rights platform is bullshit. But do you know why the GOP dominated American politics for so long? Because they were willing to accept bullshit if it got them where they wanted to go. I want to go towards drug decriminalization. Paul, in his loopy, racist, retarded way, has opened up a step in the… well, not the RIGHT direction, but let’s say the NOT WRONG direction. Plus, it potentially drives a(nother) wedge between the teabaggers and the rest of the right. This is win-win, so long as we remember it’s a marriage of convenience.
51. Tyrone Slothrop. | June 25th, 2011 at 4:24 pm
Given the amount of libertarian trolls, I wonder if any eXile piece criticizing the glory of corporatarianism is reflexively linked on some Reason blog so sockpuppets can try desperately to convince others into donating to the CATO institute.
Also Ames, when the fuck will you do drugs on the set of the Dylan Ratigan show to make a political statement?
52. Derek | June 25th, 2011 at 8:03 pm
All these states-righters in the comments are either brain-dead or cryptofascist. Local government is more openly corrupt than federal government. At least that asshole neighbor of yours with dad’s inheritance has about as much chance to influence as you do on federal government. He’s got a LOT more pull on your city counselors and your governor and state assembly/senate. And that sociopath would love to use that power to fuck you and whatever other person makes his limp dick shrivel at the thought of them being as free as him.
As governance gets more local, it gets more fascist. Just look at neighborhood covenants and homeowners organizations. I live in the fucking desert, and many homeowners organizations FORBID xeriscaping (for you easterners and swamplanders, that’s landscaping with rocks and cacti because they don’t need to empty our aquifer to maintain) because it clashes with their little European garden vision of what their neighborhood should look like.
No need to give shrimp-dick morons like that MORE power. That aquifer, our drinking water, belongs to all of us, and it sure as hell shouldn’t be up to little fiefdoms to decide what to do with that collective resource. It shouldn’t be up to the federal government either, but we need different levels of power to exert control on different levels of public resources and policies.
States shouldn’t have the right to decide how much someone is allowed to dump into the sea or how much pollution their factories and power plants are allowed to release into the air, because that shit doesn’t stay in your little state bubble. They shouldn’t get to decide whether or not they get to acknowledge the basic human rights of one group or another because you can’t control where you’re born, and often have little control over the circumstances that may prevent you from fleeing your little fascist fiefdom.
As far as weed-fascists, I don’t know any of them that aren’t talking-heads or politicos. Anyone I know personally who smokes weed supports the legalization of all drugs, making no distinction between “hard” and “soft.” The only people I know who support only weed legalization have never smoked weed themselves (or at least, not in the past 40-50 years), and only know that their precious little Billy or Susie admitted they smoke weed (but not that they also snort a bunch of coke and pop a bunch of E, that would utterly break their suburbanite parents hearts; they might write them out of their will!), and don’t want that to derail their oh-so-important career in middle management or whatever. It’s almost like this article was written with the ego-stimulating self-assuredness of a decent cocaine or amphetamine binge.
Also, terror and paranoia? For me, never from weed. But definitely from a night doing a lot of prescription amphetamines! You and I have been smoking some different-ass weed, Mr. Ames.
53. trax | June 25th, 2011 at 10:09 pm
Maybe I haven’t been paying attention but I thought Ames was of the anarchist persuasion, but no, he’s a fucking Hobbesian; apparently he thinks only a benevolent, all powerful, sovereign can be trusted to rule us ignernts for our own good.
Cuz you know, a real anarchist believes that states never oppress, only federal government oppresses. The history of mankind shows that oppression only comes from federal government coercion–ask anyone who has ever been “oppressed” by state law, they’ll tell you it’s the best thing that ever happened to them! Maybe you forgot to read the whole “States’ Rights” platform of that great radical anarchist, John C Calhoun.
54. Patriot | June 26th, 2011 at 2:34 am
@ 51/Tyrone
It would be relatively trivial to build a private web portal that searched RSS feeds for blogs and prioritized entries for rebuttal. I would not be surprised if some of the right wing outlets have done this — you would want to have the web portal accessible to some of the influential think tankers, and they would generate talking points based on the stuff that came up in their RSS feeds, for ex: this blog entry. Then they’d distribute the talking points via Fox News, talk radio etc.
55. Uhmurica | June 26th, 2011 at 4:34 am
More like: when will Dr Paul blow his brains out on live TV, that day probably isnt far off.
56. empire in decline | June 26th, 2011 at 6:14 am
Morality used to have weight when William H. Seward talked about a higher law than the Constitution prior to the civil war when condemning slavery.
Recently Foreign Policy had an interesting article:
http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2011/06/20/everything_you_think_you_know_about_the_collapse_of_the_soviet_union_is_wrong?page=0,2
Basically it talks about how economically the Soviets weren’t seen as likely to fall since their economic situation was worse in the past and the Soviet-Afghan War was only a few billion dollars. The real power was morally it was bankrupt and people were fed up with the corrupt system they were living in.
In the Middle East the moral imperative still has some resonance among the people as evidenced in the changes we are currently seeing in that region.
But here in the U.S.? Basically the response to do something moral is usally met with a reaction like this: “Uh, what, I get to go to heaven if I do the right thing morally or something? Big fucking deal, nobody believes that shit. Let’s keep this boat afloat for one more generation at any cost until we decay and die, motherfuckers!! YEE HAW!!”
Keep that moral flame alive as long and as strong as you can. One time in a million it actually works and when it does it’s incredibly powerful, but efforts like Ron Paul’s are seen as the best “hope” for any change and that change will be tepid or worthless in the end.
Personally part of me wants Sarah Palin or Ron Paul elected for president just to watch this train wreck go down into batshit glory but I know that’s the terrorist in me wanting it all to come down out of spite.
Must keep wanting something better…
57. SedanChair | June 26th, 2011 at 7:53 am
Don’t worry Mark, we potheads will help you defend your beloved cocaine as well. Of course, being potheads we’re too fucking stupid to understand that Ames hates cocaine almost as much as he hates pot, but that won’t stop us from defending what you don’t want us to defend.
58. Lev | June 26th, 2011 at 11:05 am
Jesus Christ, Mark Ames gets laid way too often. We libertards need to stop whining.
59. OH ye of little faith | June 26th, 2011 at 3:31 pm
Mr. Ames, you’ve only got it half right– the stoners are planning on pulling something characteristically duplicitous here. But you’re not carrying your suspicions far enough!
The pot-nazis aren’t going to betray their junkie (or tweaker or what-have-you) brethren. Most of them couldn’t care less one way or another about people using other drugs. It’s the libertarians they’re planning on backstabbing.
Once the stoners have gotten their half-loaf (fifty bucks says it’s never actually gonna happen, but still) then they are *done*. It’ll be all like, “Hey, it was fun playing tea party with you hicks. But we got what we want now. Later, dude!”
When you get right down to it, most weed smokers are more comfortable with a steady-state, center left model. It’s in their blood. Sure, you’ve got a chunk of the stoner population that’s genuinely libertard– mostly cranky rural folks and delusional suburban kids– but c’mon, the vast majority of potheads are Daily Show liberals.
If we legalize weed then pot-nazis, as a discrete political entity, will more or less vanish. They won’t be honorably committed to states’ rights thereafter, they’ll just fold back into the beige-o-crat mileu and make themselves comfortable, because that’s what they do. So if the libertards have the slightest bit of savvy they’ll make damn sure to keep that legalization carrot always slightly out of reach.
60. Uhmurica | June 26th, 2011 at 3:44 pm
Good edit Mr. Ames still more on TV like this one. do it Ames!
61. robert hodge | June 26th, 2011 at 4:00 pm
“This should be simple for libertarians to accept, and simple for them to say, “It’s as evil to oppress non-violent drug-users at the state level as it is at the federal level.” So say it!”
———————————————
But they do say it. Every Libertarian I’ve read has stated that the prosecution of non-violent drug users is evil and immoral. Not that I can name any who actually say it, but I that doesn’t mean that every single Libertarian that I’ve read has said it. You just haven’t read every single Libertarian that I have read. Nyah!
To the rest of the eXiled readers out there: If you are scared of the TSA unionizing the way Republibetards are scared, then do what we do: outright fabricating points. Only you should get paid for your work, and believe me, there are PR firms and bundles of Republibertard corporate cash cows ready to pay anyone willing to act like they’re upset over the TSA, or to head into comments sections and sockpuppet our righteous campaign for 4th amendment libertardy! Yep, that’ll show ’em. Oooof, grrrr!
62. pat | June 26th, 2011 at 4:15 pm
Ron Paul is insidious. He and his pal Alex Jones like to talk about the “shadow government” but little do his followers realize that Ron Paul was the “shadow government.” He and his pals at the conservative caucus and the John Birch Society never liked our form of government.
http://news.google.com/newspapers?id=2h4tAAAAIBAJ&sjid=aqQEAAAAIBAJ&pg=2995,371409&dq=ron+paul+shadow+government&hl=en
63. Me, me, me | June 26th, 2011 at 5:49 pm
Mike C. @20, I absolutely agree, the Republican leadership is elitist, they are implementers of the top 1%’s policies, when not part of it themselves. The voters, however, to whom I was refering, act against their own best self interest, because that elite is more cunning than the progressive elite.
Put it this way: Republicans win at empathy, progressives at sympathy. The marketer vs the social worker. The marketer knows what the bigoted, ignorant, fearful working class worker wants and fears, even if he won’t admit it openly. Many on the Right got rich by selling, so they’re good at it. Plus they are contemptful of the poor, thus not blinded by misguided egalitarian idealism. They know full well there are social classes, like the poor do, and so can easily sell to those poor the idea that progressives are an elite, because they are one, they are seen by working class republican voters as one, so that all the well meaning efforts by progressive elites to reach out to them fail. Even when it would be to their benefit. But then, buying what one does not need, often on credit, isn’t to their benefit either, yet the snake oil salesmen are masters at appealing to their worst instincs to close a sell. Maybe the Left needs a cynical, old school southern salesman in charge of strategy. And maybe that’s why the Right feared old Bill Clinton and tried to destroy him, even though he made them rich those 8 years…
64. old exile fan | June 26th, 2011 at 5:51 pm
I spoke with a client of mine who is a DHS officer and who has been catching narcos in US side of the border for about 30 years. He showed me pictures of weapons and drugs seized, told me about horrible crimes that these guys commit and how there is no end to it. I asked him whether there is a solution to it.
He told me, yes there is, it is legalized drugs. Take away the revenue source and the narco business ceases to exist the way it is today. Redirect the resources and turn the criminal problem into medical one. Focus on treatment and prevention, instead of jails, put people into hospitals.
Narcos will be forced to find another line of work if cocaine becomes as cheap as sugar.
65. darthfader | June 26th, 2011 at 9:14 pm
LOL, article is completely right. What a bunch of whiners in the comments.
1) States’ rights is bullshit for pot, coke, horse, abortion, whatever. All that shit should be legal everywhere.
2) “Libertarians” think it’s okay for states to violate their precious Lockean universal rights, because they’re all really Confederate Kluxers.
3) Fuck them.
If you don’t agree with this, fuck off
66. Pavel | June 27th, 2011 at 2:24 am
Excellent article Mark! Don’t mind the Ron Paul fags in the comments..
67. pat | June 27th, 2011 at 9:17 am
Lol Pavel. I guess they are too stoned to connect the dots. Is Doug Bandow still involved in Ron Paul’s campaign? I find it hard to believe that any “honest” guy would be involved with someone connected to Abramoff. http://www.businessweek.com/bwdaily/dnflash/dec2005/nf20051216_1037_db016.htm
http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?108392-Ron-Paul-Campaign-Announces-Addition-of-New-Policy-Advisors
And, what is up with this? http://www.law.stanford.edu/publications/projects/campaignfinance/collection/paul/paul.11.6.pdf
68. Christian Hargrove | June 27th, 2011 at 1:02 pm
Yeah, that Bob Marley sure was a dumbshit. He didn’t realize that he only “thought” he was being creative. Then again, maybe if he didn’t smoke so much fucking dope he wouldn’t have gotten cancer and died so young. Oh wait, sorry, forgot–marijuana is actually good for you, man, because it’s like grown in mother earth, man
69. Dammerung | June 27th, 2011 at 4:23 pm
The drug war is immoral at State level and illegal at Federal level. That’s the difference.
70. Anthony Gregory | June 27th, 2011 at 4:45 pm
Of course, libertarianism is one of the only political philosophies that is inherently opposed to all drug prohibition. I have certainly written about it from a moral point of view, many times. I certainly don’t want any drug users thrown in a cage. Now, I’m a prison abolitionist, and not all libertarians (or leftists, for that matter), go nearly as far as I do on police questions. But surely any actual libertarian is necessarily against all drug laws for human rights reasons.
Then again, libertarians are for privatized prisons, and the whole privatized prison industry coincided with the worsening of the drug war since drug arrests equal private prison profits, and of course every libertarian knows that profits are always good and always lead to more liberty, so therefore, um, therefore…hey, anyone here see the Red Sox game last night? Hoo-wee! Great action, wasn’t it? Hey, what’s that thing over there? Oops, gotta run now, I got a…um…see ya!
71. Monom | June 27th, 2011 at 6:57 pm
For what it’s worth, there are some really radical anarcho-libertarians out there who are against all forms of authority, whether public or private, but they’re not very well organized. Yuk-yuk-yuk
72. John Henry | June 27th, 2011 at 11:11 pm
@68-
Well, in all fairness, Bob Marley got cancer from a shattered foot, not from the weeds. He could’ve beat it if he hadn’t been a chump for new age medicine.
Carl Sagan loved the weeds too and he never would’ve fallen for that tripe.
Weed smokers have essentially come to dominate the skilled trades in the U.S., and the democrats have lost a good five percent or so of the voting public by abandoning them in the eighties. That might have seemed like an insignificant % at the time, but in these days of close division the weed smokers are all of a sudden halfway useful during elections, instead of just when you want your car fixed or roof patched.
If the dems actually found their balls again the dope crowd would fall away from their flirtations with libertarianism faster than you can say “zigzag” … but the dems wouldn’t dare risk losing that law-and-order chunk of voters that never votes for them anyway.
73. Alex | June 28th, 2011 at 2:11 am
Great post. I’ve never really seen the attraction of Ron Paul, especially not when you remember just how hooked he was on race-war incitement rhetoric in the 1990s. The animals are coming.! (Apologies for linking to ol’ Professor Weaksauce Q. Liberal but sometimes he keeps a good grudge.)
Hey, now that must have been some heavy shit he was taking. Animals! Coming! Out of the walls! Ima curl in a ball with my Ron Paul Report, my side arm, and a fistful o’krugerrands!
74. They do | June 28th, 2011 at 10:26 am
“Until the libertarians … concede that the drug war is a human rights issue…”
I don’t know or care what RP says, but 100% of libertarians think drug prohibition has nothing at all to do with the technicalities of the republic’s composition and literally everything to do with whatever system of rights to which they adhere. It’s an essential tenet. If you disagree, you’re not a libertarian. Period. Next strawman? (By strawman I mean “since I didn’t address your argument here about libertarian demonizing only federal government tyranny while worshipping unquestionably state-level power as something completely different and “free” whereas federal power is “coercive” and “tyrany”–since I didn’t address that flaw that’s obvious to any Third Grader, I’m a-gonna pretend I took care of it with a non-answer–ie a “strawman” rebuttal–then pretend you’re the strawman guy–then wipe my hands and be done with it.” I hope that’s clear now.)
75. Ghost of the Bard | June 28th, 2011 at 9:40 pm
Ames, when I eat pot-laced shit I read stories like this and think it means something:
http://www.livescience.com/14797-shakespeare-bones-smoked-pot.html
76. baron ungern von sternberg | June 28th, 2011 at 11:36 pm
libertarians are the lamest. libertards is right. you can easily imagine a libertard being into lame pun games like for example “hey ames is lames” or “ames is the lamest” because it has “ames” in it. yeah, they’d think that’s pretty clever
77. seagres | June 29th, 2011 at 1:09 am
2 days before this article was posted the ACLU blog had a post called “States Must Take the Lead on Ending the War on Drugs”. http://www.aclu.org/blog/criminal-law-reform/states-must-take-lead-ending-war-drugs the article unsurprisingly is not couched in terms of defending federalism, but shows examples where states have made progress towards decrim. establishment liberal journalists (ames excluded) generally approve of devolving power to states on issues like the drug war (ie California) and capital punishment (when states ban it), but when libertarians or conservatives advocate policies similar or identical in rationale, journalists always seem to invoke slavery, secession and the civil rights act. so i guess on this issue he’s one of the few un-hypocritical lib. journalists, but how can he reconcile this (pretty convincing) ACLU defense of states’ role in ending the drug war with this belief that the astroturf, koch-funded libertarians and conservatives are self-interestedly exploiting the drug war so they can later introduce state-level drug fascism? if ron paul and the aclu advocate the same policy with the same rationale, how can u characterize this as a libertarian trojan horse for the states?
Wait…sorry, I just went back and re-read the ACLU blog. It, uh, sort of refutes everything I just wrote here. What the ACLU blog points out is that nearly ALL of the drug war human rights violations are carried out at the state level. Here’s the quote from the ACLU blog that I, libertard, idiotically thought made a libertardian states’-rights point:
Now, if you have a functioning brain like Ames, you read this and realize “Giving all drug war power to the states as Dr. Paul wants to do is pretty much like giving all power to impose segregation and voting restrictions to states. THE STATES ARE THE PROBLEM. The states are where the fascism is happening. That’s why the ACLU blog suggests focusing efforts on the states–because that’s where all the fascism and human rights violations are occurring! Doyee!”
Now, a libertard such as myself reads this and just sees a few code words: “states” “state” “states” “state”. Sure, Ames’s argument is that the states can’t be trusted and therefore drugs should be de-criminalized at the federal level to end state drug-war fascism. Libertards argue that since the states are such evil fascists compared to the federal government, that therefore, all power should be devolved to the states, and then one by one, activists should try overturning each state’s fascist drug laws. And if you don’t see the clear logic in that, then you, sir, are simply not a libertard!
78. Jay | June 29th, 2011 at 11:13 pm
Mark Ames…… you are fcking
79. Marnock | June 30th, 2011 at 3:56 am
@74 See your strawman, raise you “No true Scotsman” fallacy. Many actually existing, self-identified “libertarians” support that racist cunt. And I am a true Scotsman, nothing under my kilt but an unfeasibly large cock and hairy pendulous balls. Which I slap your mother’s face with when you’re at the Heritage Institute.
80. baron ungern von sternberg | June 30th, 2011 at 3:48 pm
well ames, having decency and masculinity you have. thanks for the entertainment! and double-thanks for improving my illiterate attempt at producing a coherent thought
81. pat | June 30th, 2011 at 4:04 pm
Oh, the hypocracy….Ron Paul says…
“The Abramoff scandal has been described as the biggest Washington scandal ever: bigger than Watergate; bigger than Abscam; bigger than Koreagate; bigger than the House
banking scandal; bigger than Teapot Dome. Possibly so. It’s certainly serious and significant.
http://www.free-nefl.com/Mar-06.pdf
But not so serious and significant to hire Jack Abramoff’s paid shill as a campaign manager. http://www.pittsburghlive.com/x/pittsburghtrib/s_405491.html
Per Ron Paul, “most people realize the Social Security system, the Medicare
system, and the new prescription drug plan are unfunded.”
That is if you read paid shill Doug Bandow’s column at the Freeman. The opinion that he is paid to have. http://www.thefreemanonline.org/columns/uncle-sams-retirement-scam/
Ron Paul says it it no wonder jobs move oversees, but he sees the benefits on the congressional record…”Indeed, the effort by international agencies to expand world
trade has had results, some good.
Labor costs have been held in check.”
http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/getpage.cgi?position=all&page=3427&dbname=2001_bound_record
Ron Paul thinks it is good that jobs moved overseas to keep labor costs low. That is your salary kids.
And guess why Ron Paul wants you to opt out of Social Security? Your employer will save the 6.2% that they contribute. And good luck getting it since there are no regulations in Ron Paul’s world. He’s a freaking corporate shill.
82. Black Monk | June 30th, 2011 at 5:42 pm
Yes, the states are more corrupt than the feds. That’s why Putin in his wisdom has made all Russian oblast (state) governors federal appointees.
83. George Washington | June 30th, 2011 at 9:04 pm
I, libertard commenter am about to do 3 things… slit long was up your wrist… warm bath…. take a nap….
God Bless You, Christ Hate Me
84. abc123 | July 1st, 2011 at 7:34 am
With state rights you have the advantage that people will leave oppression. With only one government, there is nowhere to flee once it gets oppressive.
Which makes tons of sense because you know, the blacks in the South, they could have just moved. Instead, the federal government oppressed the whites into stopping oppressing the blacks. You see the logic, right?
85. pat | July 1st, 2011 at 9:53 am
Ron Paul and David Koch go way back. He was a heavy contributor in 1985.
http://news.google.com/newspapers?id=vOxYAAAAIBAJ&sjid=HFcMAAAAIBAJ&pg=2817,3848869&dq=koch+ron+paul&hl=en
86. seagres | July 1st, 2011 at 5:12 pm
Thank you for editing my comments and reminding me that I’m too retarded to understand that the states can in fact be compelled, by federal law, to stop imprisoning American citizens for non-violent drug offenses. Disregard every other retarded fucking word I wrote and I humbly apologize for wasting your precious 30 seconds of time, O Wise Exiled Moderator.
87. sadasd | July 1st, 2011 at 7:03 pm
@86 – oh really? i’m sorry i’m a retard so i didn’t know that feds can make states stop imprisoning people for violating state law if federal law supersedes it. i’m the type who’d bitch about censorship, then use retarded e-neologisms like “ur” instead of however its spelled. i’m fucking childish.
88. Junkie Joe | July 2nd, 2011 at 5:35 pm
This rules! The Viet Nam scene seemed like it was ripped from a readable version of something Burroughs woulda put out. Great work Mark.
89. baron ungern von sternberg | July 3rd, 2011 at 1:20 pm
koch-funded libertards are constantly feeling offended and aggressively counteracting, classic sign of inferiority complexes that comes from a life sucking the shit out of billionaires’ asses, mixed with characterless cowardice, well enough..
90. BM | July 3rd, 2011 at 11:12 pm
Unlike, say, vodka drunk at a table with friends and family, most drugs do not enhance life but, like abortion, serve as a way of escaping from it or avoiding it. Habitual drug users are thus, generally, self-indulgent cowards. Like many others. Avoiding life in various ways is the main modern Western pastime.
I agree that the drug war is stupid, and that people shouldn’t be forbidden by man’s law to sin against themselves. Ames makes an excellent point – if something such as limiting the right to use drugs is immoral, states shouldn’t be allowed to get away with it.
On the other hand, there are many other people who deserve more pity, help and energy than do self-indulgent drug users. Any money or time spent on the cause of drug users is money that could have been spent helping people such as starving children, vicitms of military adventures, third world peasants who could learn better agricultural techniques, the working poor, etc. etc. rather than some junkie. How many lives could have been literally saved if the yearly fund for NORML was used to pay for medicine or food in the third world. But the Western bourgeois, wearing clothes made by child slaves, would rather smoke up in peace, while others suffer.
91. baron ungern von sternberg | July 5th, 2011 at 2:43 pm
thanks again. i am starting to keep on posting and posing…
92. Cernunnos | July 13th, 2011 at 6:28 pm
@ 90
Abortion is a way of escaping life? Are you a fucking Christian or something?
Your point sort of make sense if you take all the bullshit “sinning” part out, but how the fuck is abortion about escaping life?
93. BM | July 15th, 2011 at 8:13 am
@ 92
Having children is a part of life, indeed a central part of life for people and other animals. Abortion is a tool for infantile escapism for those afraid of really living, like drugs, mass media, buffets, consumer goods, etc. etc.
94. Robert Bruce | July 15th, 2011 at 8:10 pm
Why do folks think Ron Paul is a racist? Just because he is a strict constitutionalist? Yeah, yeah, I know that means he would have voted no on the Civil Rights Act, but he votes no on sending his district pork projects as well. The end of drug prohibition would be almost just as monumental in terms of combating institutionalized racism in this nation as the Civil Rights Act did in ’65. So is Paul really racist? My point is the guy is no nonsense and just consistent And for the fools that think he is on the Koch payroll? Paul basically blew them off back in 1984 and they have railed against him ever since, especially after their takeover of the CATO Institute around the same time frame. The Koch Bros hate Lew Rockwell and Austrian economists as well. I don’t know what game Ames is trying to play here, but he seems to be very inconsistent with regards to Ron Paul. Maybe because he is the only one that offers a clear alternative to his bud Obama.
95. pat | July 16th, 2011 at 8:40 am
@94 – Do some research.
http://www.americanindependent.com/160697/ron-paul-one-of-only-four-house-republicans-to-request-earmarks-for-2011-budget
Cato, Heritage…and this stuff is post 1984.
http://www.free-nefl.com/html/nefl.html
http://www.cato.org/case-for-gold/
Book published by Cato – co-author Lewis Lehrman- a PNAC member and an investor in George Bush’s company Arbusto Oil and he’s tied to Jack Abramoff too just like Doug Bandow who is on Paul’s campaign. Either he’s dumb or connected, you decide.
96. pat | July 16th, 2011 at 9:42 am
Aw, look who Ron Paul had at his committee hearing in 2011….Lewis Lehrman.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yDU2p7oUk6g
http://www.cnn.com/ALLPOLITICS/time/1999/06/14/bush.groove.html
“Bush went back into oil. He started hiring for his own company, Arbusto (Spanish for bush), raising money from a network of East Coast backers who were close to his father and uncle, money manager Jonathan Bush. Among them were drugstore tycoon Lewis Lehrman, who lost a bid for Governor of New York in 1982.”
97. pat | July 16th, 2011 at 9:59 am
#3 contributor to Rand Paul….Koch Industries.
http://www.opensecrets.org/politicians/contrib.php?cycle=2010&cid=N00030836&type=I&newmem=Y
98. Lex | July 16th, 2011 at 8:01 pm
Man commie boy Mark Ames is pissed, tisk tisk
99. . | July 24th, 2011 at 8:31 pm
“States rights is a great compromise. Middle Americans will be free to do what they’ve always wanted, which is to turn their homes into Dominionist hellholes, and us coastal types can finish building our welfare states without being constantly interrupted by screeching and wailing about the gays or “fiscal responsibility” or drug users or whatever else those useless Protestant nut-cases care about.”
kill yourself
100. donnie lazar | August 14th, 2011 at 6:36 pm
Ron Paul is a genuine idealist constitutionalist. I can understand how someone might disagree with some or even all of his ideas, but calling him names and asserting that he is a drug war asshole and con man is a totally called for, and oh so fair. I would also like to add that it’s effective, indeed–ridicule can be a powerful weapon. Saul A. would be proud. Watching libertard commenters scream “no fair” is totally awesome, don;’t you agree?
101. anon | September 9th, 2011 at 9:34 pm
The drug legalization issue is not really going to be about either individual rights to smoke it or about overwhelming concern for the health problems of people who do. It’s an old econo-political issue. It’s about big money – aren’t drugs the most lucrative “black market” venture in the US? How many billions are involved in just the pot industry? Wherever there’s big money there’s corruption, hypocrisy, and obstruction of justice. It’s the US after all.
102. c1ue | September 16th, 2011 at 4:41 pm
Weed makes regular people stupid, and stupid people zombies.
It does seem to help schizos calm down.
It also seems to help smart driven people relax – i.e. Type A temporary antidote.
I guess it is all whether you want more stupid people in this world.
I personally don’t.
103. mad props | September 17th, 2011 at 1:17 am
if pcp is legalized that would probably be pretty neat
104. DeeboCools | December 6th, 2011 at 5:04 pm
big ups to #103 Legalize all dissociatives.
105. Blue Dream | December 30th, 2011 at 9:53 pm
What I don’t get is the preemptive hate against marijuana patients. There are only very few cannabis users that hold closeminded opinions about drugs regardless of what they choose to enjoy themselves, and those that do are hypocrites.
And then there is the mischaracterization “THC equals pure terror and paranoia.” Clearly the words of somebody who tried weed in high school to be “cool” but was too much of a pussy to stop coughing and enjoy the experience. For smoking grass to launch you into a panic attack, the conditions for the attack have to already be in place. In fact cannabis’ effects very quickly build up tolerance and are mild for most users. Yeah…dude, this fucking comment blogbagger right here, as in, me, can take his weed like a MAN.
I don’t think that any drug is enough of a “threat” to warrant criminalization.
106. Derek | January 1st, 2012 at 1:04 am
This is propaganda. You love big government and will be happy when the Gestapo comes to your door to take you to your cell at your local FEMA Camp. UFO’s are coming! Hold on while I put on my tin foil helmet! Ron Paul 2012 baby!!!
107. Cody | January 2nd, 2012 at 4:20 pm
Wow dude I might honestly be the biggest fucking idiot you’ve never seen. This comment is a sad excuse for baggertarian protest. i’m a clown
108. Scott | March 17th, 2012 at 4:36 am
I have read all the arguments pro and con and can agree with both sides except for one thing….I live in Nevada. Vegas to be exact. As many of you know Nevada allows legalized gambling and prostitution. Both are regulated and taxed by the state very successfully I might add.
In fact Nevada is and has been a model for state rights for many years and we have had our battles with the federal govt since day one of our statehood.
What we do is allow the counties to govern morality laws and even cities. Example: In southern Nevada you have a population base of one large city (Vegas) and two smaller cities on each end separated by mountains each about a 20 drive
On one side is the town of Parhump where gambling and prostitution is legal and you can carry a licensed weapon if so desired.
On the other side of the Vegas valley is Boulder City. There is no gambling, alcohol of any type is hard to find and prostitution is not legal and gun laws are very strict.
In the middle is sin city where gambling is legal, alcohol is an accepted way of life in the tourist corridors so long as you don’t drive and prostitution is not legal (technically)
When drugs become legal in Nevada, each county and city will decide for themselves how they want to do this. They may keep it as is or legalize it. It will not be a uniform statewide issue.
My guess is that Vegas will legalize pot and tax it with the same laws that govern alcohol except I doubt there will be any public smoking allowed. Heroin will only be administered to addicts in its purest form on the condition that the addict agrees to go to state rehab.
Lifting the federal prohibition will help eliminate crime associated with the the underground economy that creates turf wars.
The cost of law enforcement, the judiciary and incarceration due to the prohibition would go way down if not eliminated in time.
We have learned here in Nevada that legislating morals even at the county level is not easy but it is better that what we and all other major cities are experiencing right now THAT THE FEDERAL DRUG LAWS ARE NOT WORKING.
Let states decide how to handle this problem.
109. miko | May 27th, 2012 at 9:53 pm
Romney if elected will complete the end of the USA as we once new it. A vote for Romney is a vote for our demise. Romney IS Obama…Dr. Ron Paul 2012. AEC: Haha! He’s just kidding folks! Thanks for the classic bagtard humor, buddy! eXiled readers need a good laugh or two in these serious times. Keep it up!
110. Robert | February 17th, 2013 at 6:12 am
Libertarians have long held the moral high ground on the immorality of drug laws.
Libertarians favor localism as and if a tool for rights, and don’t advocate states’ rights. States have no rights in their view.
Paul is not a libertarian but a GOP states rightist. He’s favorable to many Libertarian views and once ran as the USLP candidate–but has many anti-libertarian views as well.
Thaty said, a great article on what is wrong with the Paulistas.
111. junkie pro 1488 geil gitle | January 27th, 2015 at 3:01 pm
Fuck your morality, pal. Democracy is democracy regardless of your utterly naive views on morality. If a country wants to expel its negroes and use heroin so what? It’s none of your goddamned business. Morality is a myth invented by religious nuts.
Leave a Comment
(Open to all. Comments can and will be censored at whim and without warning.)
Subscribe to the comments via RSS Feed