It's his position against the drug war that makes Ron Paul so volcanically controversial here on DU.

splat

But the rest is a poison pill.

His campaign manager went on TV and said that very explicitly. He is NOT against war. For that matter, he voted in favor of invading Afghanistan before he was against it. He also supported attacking Iran before he was against it.

the globalrevolution livestream chat, in all caps, over and over and over until they were banned.

Then they'd activate a new ID and start all over.

Imagining that a leaderless movement would suddenly want a leader, and would be attracted by such screaming.

I don't believe I need to even know much more than that, but what I've seen since certainly does not help his case.

Thanks for giving me the chance to reiterate that...

You might recall Obama's speech about race during the 2008 campaign, he spoke for an hour and never once mentioned that black men like him have a one in three chance of ending up in prison at some point in their lives.

AGAIN.

Besides, the economy is going gangbusters, we get told that every day here on DU.

without any real expectation that new "permanent" jobs will be created, permanent at least for a decade or so.

than put into a cage for years as a result of the drug war.

I thought it was because he's a racist fuck that some democrats don't seem to mind cuz they like one or two other things about him...

If not then this is a conversation that needs to happen, if Ron Paul happens to drive that conversation then so be it.

useful purpose.

Paul's one good idea is, unfortunately, unwelcome in the democratic party power structure, which seeks to prop up the police state

You think maybe they aren't racist or bigots?

They may not have it written on paper, but they never once supported gays or people of color. Not to my knowledge.

Those candidates I listed may be every bit as dangerous as Paul.

It's his racist words that makes Ron Paul so volcanically controversial here on DU.

My point was that the other candidates just are not as blatant about it.

Did I not mention Ron Paul?

But I fully support efforts that fluff him up simply because it upsets Romney and the GOP!!!!

Go Ron!!!!

"No, it's because Paul makes Democrats and specifically Obama look bad on the drug war that drives a great deal of the sheer vitriol against him, without that position he would be just another jerkoff Republican candidate."

...the people making this argument believe it, which means Paul is "just another jerkoff Republican candidate."

http://www.democraticunderground.com/1002138632

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=137223

Seriously, the Paul obssession is starting to read like an apologia for all other Republicans.

"Is your message is that he is uniquely racist and homophobic among RWers?"

...who gives a shit? Anyone constantly hyping other Republicans and claiming that their distorted views are "progressive"?

Still, I'm sure if this (http://www.democraticunderground.com/1002135956) was Santorum, you wouldn't be trying to justify anything he said.

I don't recall every trying to justify any of that, said by Paul or Santorum or anyone else.

I'm sure it is all kinds of fun to call anyone who disagrees with you on any point whatsoever a racist but there ought to be some sort of limit... some concession to decency.

"I don't recall every trying to justify any of that, said by Paul or Santorum or anyone else."

...no one is trying to justify anything Paul's says. Is that your understanding of the claims that some of his views are "progressive"?

"I'm sure it is all kinds of fun to call anyone who disagrees with you on any point whatsoever a racist but there ought to be some sort of limit... some concession to decency."

So you're saying Paul isn't a racist? I mean, who do you think I'm calling a "racist" when I say Paul is a racist?

I am trying to defend, or would be likely to defend racist utterances by Ron Paul that I would not defend if said by Santorum.

And there is no basis for that.

I don't think I have ever defended Ron Paul.

I have, however, criticized the use of Ron Paul's obvious racism as a cudgel to attack people who hold perfectly reasonable views that are not the least bit racist and are not in any way derived from Ron Paul and having nothing to do with Ron Paul beyond their cooincidence.

"Your implication was that...I am trying to defend, or would be likely to defend racist utterances by Ron Paul that I would not defend if said by Santorum."

...it wasn't. Stating that someone is using flawed logic is not implying racism.

to the Constitution that gives me pause. I couldn't care less about his other positions that make him popular among others. There is always going to be war, whether it be against other nations or drugs. Saying he could change that is naive at best and anyone who believes he could do this is naive as well.

Liberals mainly just want to decriminalize simple possession and totally legalize marijuana.

We do not, largely, want to let cocaine and heroine dealers operate without the federal government giving a damn. We do not want to allow pharmaceutical companies go unregulated and free to distribute untested medications that could have serious side effects and kill people. We do not want to let big pharma do whatever the hell it wants without the federal government offering any oversight whatsoever.

What I just described is exactly what one should expect from a Ron Paul drug policy. He cherry coats it by suggesting that people would be able to freely smoke weed, but what he really means to do is open us all up to corporate negligence with no recourse and allow the hard stuff, like cocaine and heroine, to do its intended job in killing off the poor minorities that the people who deal in those kinds of drugs tend to prey upon. I want legal weed, but it ain't fucking worth THAT.

If you agree with his drug policy, you are free to your opinion. But don't pretend that those of us who are liberal and oppose his policy have ANYTHING to be ashamed about. I suggest you stop being so damn gullible and take a look at what Ron Paul is actually suggesting in the broader picture of the drug problem. I want to decriminalize simple possession and totally legalize marijuana. But I do NOT have anything in common with Ron Paul and his despicably lazy and irresponsible view on how the federal government should operate in regard to overall drug policy.

Because alcohol is every bit as mind altering as the vast majority of illegal drugs, the whole "alcohol and drugs" shtick is a false dichotomy, alcohol is a drug.

Regulated does not mean illegal.

And I'm a lot more worried about a pharmaceutical company putting out an irresponsibly tested medication for diabetes or arthritis and people take it and end up dying from some unforeseen side effect. In his view, the government wouldn't do any of that kind of oversight work.

Alcohol is a drug. But you can't kill yourself from taking a shot of whiskey, unless you already have cirrhosis or some other liver problem that makes you alcohol intolerant. Use some common fucking sense here. Long term alcohol abuse and drunk driving and stuff like that is a problem, but heroine is still way worse. You can kill yourself on one bad dose of heroine. You can easily kill yourself. You can more easily die from attempting to quit heroine. Its way worse and thus should be illegal. Any drug of that nature should be illegal to sell, under penalty of prison.

Libertarian drug policy is just as insane as the zero tolerance, war on drugs nonsense. People would fucking die because of it. Keep it the fuck out of my country.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alcohol_withdrawal_syndrome

Alcohol withdrawal syndrome is the set of symptoms seen when an individual reduces or stops alcohol consumption after prolonged periods of excessive alcohol intake. Excessive abuse of alcohol leads to tolerance, physical dependence, and an alcohol withdrawal syndrome. The withdrawal syndrome is largely due to the central nervous system being in a hyper-excitable state. Unlike most withdrawals from other drugs, alcohol withdrawal can be fatal. The withdrawal syndrome can include seizures and delirium tremens and may lead to excito-neurotoxicity

Usually, you have to drink everyday, for quite a long time, before your body develops that level of dependency and some people drink that way for decades and still quit without experiencing any of that.

Considering the usual length of time abusing alcohol would take before someone becomes that codependent, I see a lot more leeway for being permissive of alcohol than heroine. Heroine can put you into a state of codependence a lot easier and a lot faster. With alcohol, people have plenty of time to realize what they are doing to themselves before its too late. Of course it doesn't always work out that way. But the fact is, the easier it is for a drug to make someone that codependent, the more dangerous that drug is. Also, alcoholics have a higher chance of being able to function during their day to day lives than heroine addicts do. I'm not defending alcohol. My opinion on it is that its fine, if you don't abuse it, and it can be a real problem if you do. But theres no way you can compare the short or long term effects of alcohol to heroine. Comparing tit for tat, heroine is going to come out on top as a bigger threat, big enough that it should remain illegal. And I can name about a half a dozen opiate based pain pills that are legal by prescription that should be under almost as many tight restrictions. They have been handing out oxycontin like candy in Appalachia and its made a desperate situation about a thousand times worse in that area of the country. That is just a preview of what a Ron Paul drug policy would look like on a national scale.

It's not possible to compare legal and illegal recreational drugs for safety.

Also, if you could actually spell the name of the drug properly it would be easier to believe that you know something about it.

It's not the female lead in an adventure flick..

Heroin is illegal..

No standards for purity or dosage in either case..

Most heroin overdoses are due to varying purity, a user get acclimated to a certain level of potency and then unknowingly gets hold of some much purer drug and uses the same volume as usual and it puts them over the edge..

Make alcohol illegal to the same extent heroin is and watch people drop dead from adulterated rotgut bathtub gin in wholesale numbers.

That's what happened the last time alcohol was made illegal in the USA and it's one of the prime reasons alcohol prohibition was overturned by constitutional amendment a mere thirteen years after it was enacted the same way, a blindingly fast reversal really.

Actually during alcohol prohibition it wasn't illegal to possess or consume alcohol, it was only illegal to manufacture, import or distribute alcohol, in that way alcohol was "decriminalized" at that point in history and it was still a societal disaster.

Thats all regulated, pharmaceutical grade shit, its pure. Its not heroin, but its close enough to the same molecular neighborhood that it might as well be. Like I said, doctors handed it out like candy in appalachia and people have been doing themselves in left and right.

And only about ten percent of the deaths from tobacco..

But any 21 year old can buy tobacco and alcohol over the counter at any convenience store in the country.

http://www.drugwarfacts.org/cms/Causes_of_Death#Cause

(2006 - cause of death - alcohol) "In 2006, a total of 22,073 persons died of alcohol-induced causes in the United States (Tables 23 and 24). This category includes not only deaths from dependent and nondependent use of alcohol, but also accidental poisoning by alcohol. It excludes unintentional injuries, homicides, and other causes indirectly related to alcohol use as well as deaths due to fetal alcohol syndrome."

(2006 - causes of death - drug induced) "In 2006, a total of 38,396 persons died of drug-induced causes in the United States (Tables 21 and 22). This category includes not only deaths from dependent and nondependent use of legal or illegal drugs, but also poisoning from medically prescribed and other drugs. It excludes unintentional injuries, homicides, and other causes indirectly related to drug use, as well as newborn deaths due to the mother’s drug use."

(2000 - causes of death - leading causes) "The leading causes of death in 2000 were tobacco (435,000 deaths; 18.1% of total US deaths)

are terrified of the DEA.

Frankly, I'd rather have some people get meds they don't need than have people who need them not get them. Time to stop trying to control the choices of consenting adults.

misdirection.

and, who could argue with that ? ...... Seems like a stand up position to me .... Eh ?

Yay Ron Paul !

A drug arrest just fucks up your entire life, does drinking OJ do that?

Ron Paul happens to 'accidentally' have a singular political philosophy of which I can ascribe, yet the totality of who Ron Paul is and what beliefs he espouses goes far beyond questions about the Drug War .... He is a disaster ....

Your attempt to declare this one specific plank makes something special of Ron Paul, well, one might as well joust with windmills ...

No love for this 'angle' of argument ...

EDIT: Further, your statement; that his position makes him controversial in DU, is simply nonsense .... It is the other NEGATIVE aspects of Ron Paul's collection of beliefs that most find most objectionable .... To state that his position on the WoD is that actual cause of consternation by 'DU'ers is simply absurd ....

Thanks for giving me the opportunity to reiterate that.

But my OP was actually about why the arguments over Paul are raging on DU, we don't have this problem with other Republican candidates and I'm pointing out the reason for the arguments.

is ridiculed by those who don't want people to see how outrageous, abusive, intrusive and down right anti-American the WoD truly is.

To say Paul is opposed to 'The Drug War' means what, specifically? That's he is for legalization? No. That the federal government does not possess the authority to establish laws regulating drug possession. Does that mean there is no such authority? No, the States according to Paul hold the authority to regulate and make any drug laws they wish. So this means that Paul, who personally opposes any sort of recreational use would like to see each State craft it's own set of laws controlling drugs.
That is not really opposition to regulation of drugs. It is opposition to Federal authority in many areas, which encompasses drug laws.
All that aside, Democrats should own this issue, as well as issues of peace and human rights. The fact that they allow rhetorical territory to remain so wide open that a guy like Paul can seem to occupy that territory is the fault of Democrats. His policy is not good policy, it is just different policy. The country is sick of the old policy. It is rife with injustice and waste. Still, merely shifting the authority and arguments to the 50 State houses is not 'an end to the Drug War'. It is more likely the creation of many smaller drug wars.

You might want to study the history of the drug war a bit before venturing an opinion on it.

exploded and have laws been passed that turned cities into police states for young minority men. See the links in the GD discussion at http://www.democraticunderground.com/1002137460 .

I learn new things on DU almost every day.

And there's no need to be RUDE.

Don't you see the decline in the incarceration growth rate in your own graph in the late 70s?

And the acceleration after 1980?

See, for example, http://www.albany.edu/scj/documents/Sabol_ManagingPopulations.pdf :

"As has been well documented, the size of correctional populations in the United States, especially, the U.S. prison population, grew dramatically during the past 30 years. The number of offenders in U.S. prisons increased five-fold from about 320,000 in 1980 to 1.6 million in 2009 (West, 2010). The total number of adults under correctional supervision (on probation or parole, in prison or in jail) increased four-fold from 1.8 million in 1980 to 7.3 million in 2008 (Bureau of Justice Statistics, 2010), so that by the end of 2008, about 3.2% of adults in the U.S. (or one in 31) were under some form of correctional supervision (Glaze and Bonczar, 2009)."

And the upward slope of the curve is set before 1975 as you can clearly see on the graph with a brief respite during the Carter administration.

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

Thank you for giving me the opportunity to reiterate that.

Obviously all the other Republican candidates are far superior to Paul as far as women's rights go.

Now, would you like to talk about the actual subject of my OP?

Ron Paul is a problem here because people are willing to overlook his overall odious outlook because a handful of his stances line up with their personal beliefs.

Thank you for giving me the opportunity to reiterate that point.

Ron Paul's stance on the drug war is not the driving force concerning the contention around him on this board.

The driving force is that there are DUers willing to overlook his overall odious outlook because a handful of his beliefs line up with their personal beliefs.

I'm not saying you are one of those people. I'm saying that those people exist on this board.

A liberal/progressive sees the drug war as a futile effort that does nothing to address actual drug abuse. A liberal/progressive would rather see money and manpower spent on proper treatment facilities and public health campaigns. A liberal/progressive recognizes that private prisons and the politicians who support them are the only ones benefiting from the drug war.

Ron Paul doesn't want the government to spend money on public health. He simply doesn't believe in the concept of a social contract.

Which is basically what we have now with the amazingly bipartisan drug war.

And there you go.

I'm done with this thread.

involvement in "drugs" as Ron Paul policy does not end with 'no no government involvement in "drugs'. Just no Federal. Not the same thing. Not at all the same thing.

There's a lot of states that would become far more lenient in this matter if the feds would only relent..

The states that wouldn't become more lenient already can pass more draconian laws if they wish and indeed many have done just that.

everyone is so desperate for the "authorities" to show some fucking sanity on it.

We're left with ground-up remedies like jury nullification, where we're now seeing local prosecutors shocked that juries aren't happy about being asked to sacrifice days at work so they can be asked to throw some pot smoker in prison.

I've said repeatedly- if our leaders would show some long-overdue spine on this, most of Ron Paul's "support" on the left would evaporate immediately.

K&R.

It's money and power, hundreds of billions of dollars and vast power, the power to make America into incarceration nation.

and are meh at best in civil rights as long as the non-"stakeholders" have roughly equal access to whatever is permitted by our wiser betters largely regardless of race and gender.

I would add personal freedom & privacy protections and the Bill Of Rights, although a lot of that can be rolled into/traced back to the drug war as well as the worst aspects of the so-called 'war on terror'.

To be fair, we are out of Iraq. But the 'sensible centrists' were wrong on that one, too. I think it's time to give the kooky fire-breathing liberals a turn at the wheel, myself.

He has a few supporters, for the reasons you describe, most likely, many detractors, and a majority of shruggers.

Not really an important entity in Democratic or even national politics.

Now, on the drug war, I agree wholeheartedly, and, in fact, I'd suggest that most people on this board do. It's a disaster, and one of the main areas where almost everybody on the left disagrees with the politicians. It's also remarkably difficult to unwind, which everybody also understands.

Every time his name is mentioned it ends up in a free-for-all..

Why is it "remarkably difficult to unwind"?

Most people don't give a shit, and know that Paul is the epitome of libertarian childishness.

Why is it difficult to unwind? because it is a forty year old set of interlocking policies at federal, state, and local levels - completely entrenched in various legislative bodies, supported by and supporting numerous industries, and etc. I'd love to be the one to wave a wand and make it go away. It is an outrage in so many levels. Unfortunately, in the grown-up world, shit don't happen like that, and can't. So, the goal is to focus on shit we can do. Yes, we'd all love brave politicians who could begin to move us in that direction. But that doesn't increase my fascination in a dude who has a position without a process, which is the case for almost any libertarian, and certainly Paul.

And indeed it's nearly the first time I've discussed him on DU..

But I'm watching thread after thread about him blow up into flamefests..

For instance, you are on this thread arguing about Paul and his policies.

ETA: Not to mention that alcohol prohibition was brought to a rapid close so it can be done.

for a very short time relative to the drug war, and had far less buy in at all levels. These are just historical facts. Like I said, I wish i could make the drug war a bottom line issue in the voting booth.

Because some people are thinking of taking it to the voting booth..

that's how to unwind it.

The truth is that the drug warriors have been defeated in the opinions of Americans.

When prohibition was hugely unpopular, as one person who wrote about the era noted... IN A DEMOCRACY, when the people have spoken, the govt. responds.

However, in the U.S. now, the govt does not respond.

So, maybe the reality is that we no longer have a representative govt - we have a govt. that responds to the will of a few wealthy assholes.

We have a Libya/Syria/Iran war cheerleading section here on DU, for goodness sake!

I personally think that there is WAY more support for the Drug War, in particular, here on DU and many DUers are reluctant to vocalize this support, since there is literally no logical argument in favor of the Drug War, as implemented. You know--the ones who are quick to post 'Well, I don't support the Drug War, but a law's a law!".

I haven't seen many paul supporters here, but I do know a few out in the real world. All I could do was to tell them to look deeper into what his views are.

"it's because Paul makes Democrats and specifically Obama look bad on the drug war that drives a great deal of the sheer vitriol against him"

Every one of the repug candidates has (deservedly) been on the receiving end of plenty of "sheer vitriol" here on DU. If you think Cain, Perry or Newt were handled with kid gloves here when they had their surges, or that Santorum is being killed with kindness, you are not paying attention. Paul gets treated badly because he has closely associated himself with vile racism and holds positions on a wide range of issues that are anathema to most DUers, such as his unapologetic opposition to the Civl Rights Act and to equal rights for women, and his anti-choice, anti-union and pro-gun stances. The fact that his libertarianism means that he sometimes stumbles into a position that aligns with progressive stances on something like drugs or the wars in Iraq/Afghanistan doesn't cause most DUers to oppose him any more or any less than they oppose the other repub candidates and your concern that somehow he is being singled out, while duly noted, is simply misplaced.

but I would be surprised to find that when Cain was surging that there weren't far more posts about him than the other candidates and that when Newt suddenly looked like he was catching fire there were more posts about him than the others and it seems like there are as many if not more posts about Santorum in the last week or so as about Paul. The one difference is that on the Cain, Gingrich and Santorum posts, there was no one defending their candidacy. To the extent that there are posts on DU that defend Paul's candidacy (not his specific positions but his candidacy), its true that there is more "controversy" -- but that's not because the folks challenging the Paul defenders support the War on Drugs, its because they don't think that his position on that issue or even on the wars is enough to make his candidacy defensible.

about that vile homophobe, racist, anti-Semite, mysogenist.

I was at an impasse trying to figure out why anybody would be confused about why most here oppose such a bigoted Republican piece of shit.

I would never support a racist creep who is in favor of repealing the civil rights act.

but who's really more racist, in 2012?

Person A) Supports the drug war and the Civil Rights Act
Person B) Wants to eliminate the drug war and the Civil Rights Act

there's not a cut-and-dry answer to that question. The drug war may in fact have hurt more minorities than the Civil Rights Act helps today, given that so much of our society has evolved past the old days of Jim Crow and wouldn't reinstitute it if they could.

It's his misogyny, his racist remarks and his anti-choice opinions that make him look bad.

There are many otherwise progressive people who take down right reactionary positions when it comes to Israel and a lot of the examples of how Paul is unreasonable--from both left and right--has been he wants to end military aid to Israel. Plus, the desire to paint this position as somehow rooted in Paul's racism or antisemitism--when even mainstream human rights groups like Amnesty have called for an arms embargo on Israel--makes me think that's the real issue.

That being said, it hasn't escaped my notice that those screaming that loudest that progressives shouldn't support Paul because of his positions on the war, drones, assassinations, drug war, etc. tend to support the war in Afghanistan, drones, assassinating US citizens, etc.