Ron Paul’s land of second-rate values

[Auburn85 434]

http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/ron-pauls-land-of-second-rate-values/2011/05/09/AFD8B2bG_story.html

Michael Gerson

Before last week’s South Carolina Republican debate, Ron Paul supporters complained that their candidate was not getting the first-tier attention his polling and fundraising should bring. It is true that Paul has often been overlooked and dismissed, as one might treat a slightly dotty uncle. But perhaps some first-tier scrutiny is deserved.

Paul was the only candidate at the debate to make news, calling for the repeal of laws against prostitution, cocaine and heroin. The freedom to use drugs, he argued, is equivalent to the freedom of people to “practice their religion and say their prayers.” Liberty must be defended “across the board.” “It is amazing that we want freedom to pick our future in a spiritual way,” he said, “but not when it comes to our personal habits.”

This argument is strangely framed: If you tolerate Zoroastrianism, you must be able to buy heroin at the quickie mart. But it is an authentic application of libertarianism, which reduces the whole of political philosophy to a single slogan: Do what you will — pray or inject or turn a trick — as long as no one else gets hurt.

Even by this permissive standard, drug legalization fails. The de facto decriminalization of drugs in some neighborhoods — say, in Washington, D.C. — has encouraged widespread addiction. Children, freed from the care of their addicted parents, have the liberty to play in parks decorated by used needles. Addicts are liberated into lives of prostitution and homelessness. Welcome to Paulsville, where people are free to take soul-destroying substances and debase their bodies to support their “personal habits.”

But Paul had an answer to this criticism. “How many people here would use heroin if it were legal? I bet nobody would,” he said to applause and laughter. Paul was claiming that good people — people like the Republicans in the room — would not abuse their freedom, unlike those others who don’t deserve our sympathy.

The problem, of course, is that even people in the room may have sons or daughters who have struggled with addiction. Or maybe even have personal experience with the freedom that comes from alcohol and drug abuse. One imagines they did not laugh or cheer.

Libertarians often cover their views with a powdered wig of 18th- and 19th-century philosophy. They cite Locke, Smith and Mill as advocates of a peaceable kingdom — a utopia of cooperation and spontaneous order. But the reality of libertarianism was on display in South Carolina. Paul concluded his answer by doing a jeering rendition of an addict’s voice: “Oh yeah, I need the government to take care of me. I don’t want to use heroin, so I need these laws.” Paul is not content to condemn a portion of his fellow citizens to self-destruction; he must mock them in their decline. Such are the manners found in Paulsville.

This is not “The Wealth of Nations” or the “Second Treatise of Government.” It is Social Darwinism. It is the arrogance of the strong. It is contempt for the vulnerable and suffering.

The conservative alternative to libertarianism is necessarily more complex. It is the teaching of classical political philosophy and the Jewish and Christian traditions that true liberty must be appropriate to human nature. The freedom to enslave oneself with drugs is the freedom of the fish to live on land or the freedom of birds to inhabit the ocean — which is to say, it is not freedom at all. Responsible, self-governing citizens do not grow wild like blackberries. They are cultivated in institutions — families, religious communities and decent, orderly neighborhoods. And government has a limited but important role in reinforcing social norms and expectations — including laws against drugs and against the exploitation of men and women in the sex trade.

It was just 12 years ago — though it seems like a political lifetime — that a Republican presidential candidate visited a rural drug treatment center outside Des Moines. Moved by the stories of recovering young addicts, Texas Gov. George W. Bush talked of his own struggles with alcohol. “I’m on a walk. And it’s a never-ending walk as far as I’m concerned. . . . I want you to know that your life’s walk is shared by a lot of other people, even some who wear suits.”

In determining who is a “major” candidate for president, let’s begin here. Those who support the legalization of heroin while mocking addicts are marginal. It is difficult to be a first-tier candidate while holding second-rate values.

michaelgerson@washpost.com

[Aufan59 101]

What if I simply say it is a religious practice to use heroin? To deny me my heroin use is to deny a Christian his communion.

Religion, by definition, is 99.9+% imagined (there are thousands of documented religions, but only Christianity is not imagined). I think Ron Paul is right in his premise... if we should protect the free practice of religion, we should protect the free practice of anything.

We draw the line at innocent parties getting harmed. But doing legal heroin in your basement doesn't necessarily mean you are harming an innocent party.

[mcgufcm 4,107]

The Supreme Court has already answered that question. Employment Division v. Smith. The State may make exceptions for religious use of otherwise illegal substances, but they do not have to accommodate. In general, a federal law banning an action or requiring an action trumps your right to use it for religious purposes... unless you're Amish. No rules apply to you as an Amish person.

There is a societal harm to allowing free traffic of narcotics. Personally, I'm all for the State protecting people from themselves, but even if you aren't, it's silly to claim that there are no spill over effects to legalized drugs, especially drugs like heroin and cocaine. Even if you're just shooting up in your basement, there will be ripple effects on people around you. The State can and should enforce laws to protect those people even if it isn't allowed to step in for your benefit.

[Aufan59 101]

The Supreme Court has already answered that question. Employment Division v. Smith. The State may make exceptions for religious use of otherwise illegal substances, but they do not have to accommodate. In general, a federal law banning an action or requiring an action trumps your right to use it for religious purposes... unless you're Amish. No rules apply to you as an Amish person.

I think this double standard is garbage, especially with the Amish, but there have been plenty of garbage supreme court decisions.

There is a societal harm to allowing free traffic of narcotics. Personally, I'm all for the State protecting people from themselves, but even if you aren't, it's silly to claim that there are no spill over effects to legalized drugs, especially drugs like heroin and cocaine. Even if you're just shooting up in your basement, there will be ripple effects on people around you. The State can and should enforce laws to protect those people even if it isn't allowed to step in for your benefit.

The same can be said about alcohol. Using legal heroin may have ripple effects throughout society, but doesn't black market heroin have ripple effects too?

[Auburn85 434]

Speaking of mentioning Ron Paul and the Amish in the same thread...

http://blog.chron.com/txpotomac/2011/05/a-raw-political-fight-ron-paul-battles-the-fda-over-allowing-americans-to-drink-raw-milk/

A raw political fight: Ron Paul battles FDA to allow Americans to drink raw milk

by KatiePerkowski

Four years ago, Kathleen Lutrell became a raw milk convert.

Lutrell, then a mother of a 3-month-old boy named Aaron, was unable to breastfeed and her son vomited every time she gave him the pediatrician-recommended formula. Her son began losing weight, and the doctor put him on the heartburn medication Zantac and recommended a different formula. Lutrell began searching for a better alternative.

She found Sally Fallon Morell, president of Weston A. Price Foundation, an organization dedicated to restoring nutrient-dense foods in people’s diets through education and research. The organization specifically aims to establish universal access to clean, certified raw milk and a ban of soy formulas for infants.

Fallon Morell told Lutrell about a formula made out of ingredients including raw milk.

“The first time I fed it to him, he kept it down and he smiled,” Lutrell said. “And I was a convert.”

Monday morning, Lutrell, who lives in Bowie, Md., sported a sign reading “Junk Food is Legal, Don’t Outlaw Real Food” just outside the Capitol in support of the raw milk movement and small farmers targeted by the FDA.

“Before that I couldn’t have cared less about the raw milk issue … I would’ve thought everybody out here was a nut, but I know I’m not,” she said. “And I can tell you from personal experience that the health of my family, my own personal health and the health of my baby has improved significantly since we’ve been eating real dairy.”

Grassfed on the Hill Buying Club, made up of about 1,000 members, organized the rally and for years has been purchasing unpasteurized milk products from Dan Allgyer, an Amish farmer who owns Rainbow Acres Farm in Kinzers, Pa. Recently, after a year-long inspection of Allgyer’s farm and at the request of the FDA, the Justice Department filed a complaint for a permanent injunction, accusing Allgyer of distributing unpasteurized milk for human consumption in interstate commerce — a violation of federal law.

An April 26 press release by the FDA says the complaint filed against Allgyer also accused him of violating federal law “misbranding the ‘raw’ milk containers by failing to provide the label information required by law.”

In April 2010, after inspecting Allgyer’s farm through a warrant, the FDA issued him a letter telling him of the violations and warning him that regulatory action may be taken. Grassfed on the Hill Buying Club operated anyway, but added a private club with membership fees between the farm and its consumers because of the FDA’s actions.

“Drinking raw milk is dangerous and shouldn’t be consumed under any circumstances,” said Dara A. Corrigan, associate commissioner for regulatory affairs at the FDA. “FDA has warned the defendant on multiple occasions that introducing raw milk into interstate commerce is in violation of federal law.”

If the injunction is issued, Allgyer may be prohibited from distributing raw milk for human consumption across state lines.

Monday’s rally highlighted the battle between people who believe in the nutritious value of raw milk and their right to it and the FDA, which views it as a dangerous cause of foodborne illness and regulates its consumption.

Last week, Texas Rep. Ron Paul, R-Lake Jackson, introduced legislation that would allow shipment and distribution of unpasteurized milk products for human consumption across state lines.

In a statement introducing the legislation, Paul said it would remove “an unconstitutional restraint on farmers.”

“Many Americans have done their own research and come to the conclusion that unpasteurized milk is healthier than pasteurized milk,” Paul said today. “These Americans have the right to consume these products without having the federal government second-guess their judgment or thwart their wishes. If there are legitimate concerns about the safety of unpasteurized milk, those concerns should be addressed at the state and local level.”

Paul expressed anger that a raid like the one conducted on Allgyer’s farm had taken place.

“Federal agents wasted a whole year and who knows how many of our tax dollars posing as customers in order to catch Allgyer committing the ‘crime’ of selling his milk. He was not tricking people into buying it, he was not forcing people to purchase it and there had been no complaints about his product,” he said. “These were completely voluntary transactions, but ones that our nanny-state federal government did not approve of, and so they shut down his business. The arrogance of the FDA and so many other federal agencies is simply appalling. These types of police state raids on peaceful businessmen, so reminiscent of our tyrannical federal drug war, have no place in a free society.”

Those at Monday’s rally referenced Paul’s bill and expressed enthusiastic support for its passage.

Mark McAfee is the founder and owner of Organic Pastures Dairy Company in California, where the sale of raw milk inside the state is legal. His organization has been around since 1999 and distributes raw milk made from grassfed cows to 400 stores statewide.

“The bottom line is, that milk cannot be taken to people in Nevada, just like milk produced like that in Pennsylvania can’t be brought up here and fed to people in Washington,” he said at Monday’s rally, where a large part of the crowd was made up by mothers.

He called the FDA law that prohibits sales of raw milk across state lines “corrupt.”

“And today, consumers are irate that in fact their farmer is being blocked to be able to produce this milk and sell it to them across state lines,” he said. “And these moms know how their families do with pasteurized milk and pasteurized milk is highly allergenic, it’s one of the most highly allergenic foods in America, but yet raw milk is not. And raw milk doesn’t cause lactose intolerance in hardly anybody.”

McAfee called the truth that consumers know and the “government crap” that’s getting in between a “disparity.”

“It’s protectionism for industry. Because remember industry makes a lot of money on processing but they make no money on raw milk that comes directly from a farmer to consumer,” he said. “So this is a blowout where people are saying ‘Hey let the farmers feed us and stop getting between the farmers and the consumers.’”

McAfee said the FDA should be nowhere near consumers’ food, and it should stick to regulating the pharmaceutical industry, drugs and surgeries.

“They have no understanding or appreciation of what food is. They don’t understand that food is related to health,” he said. “In fact they have laws against food being associated with health. They say ‘if you get sick, go to the doctor, take a drug.’ They don’t say ‘eat well.’”

McAfee, like other speakers who appeared at the rally, advocated for unprocessed, organic natural foods being the sustainable, nutritious path forward.

“That’s the message here today.”

[Aufan59 101]

Thanks for that article. The FDA's corruption ceases to amaze.

“They have no understanding or appreciation of what food is. They don’t understand that food is related to health,” he said. “In fact they have laws against food being associated with health. They say ‘if you get sick, go to the doctor, take a drug.’ They don’t say ‘eat well.’”

[mcgufcm 4,107]

According to Justice Scalia, you can thank George Washington for accommodations to the Amish. We've been accommodating their religious practices since the birth of the nation. Washington made explicit references to Amish citizens as deserving special treatment under law.

And the alcohol comparison is either disingenuous or simple. First, we regulate alcohol to reduce the amount of spillover effect and to protect those that we do not believe are capable of making the correct decisions for themselves. In that way, it's exactly like heroin. Heroin is just worse for you and worse for society so we regulate it more thoroughly. As for the spillover effects of black-market heroin, that's why we have the criminal code. We attempt to minimize those spillover effects by implementing criminal punishments harsh enough to discourage its distribution or consumption. Whether we are providing effective dis-incentives is another debate, but the spillover effects of black market heroin are much lower than legalize it. Watch The Wire. Look at Hampsterdam. That image is about right.

[Aufan59 101]

According to Justice Scalia, you can thank George Washington for accommodations to the Amish. We've been accommodating their religious practices since the birth of the nation. Washington made explicit references to Amish citizens as deserving special treatment under law.

And the alcohol comparison is either disingenuous or simple. First, we regulate alcohol to reduce the amount of spillover effect and to protect those that we do not believe are capable of making the correct decisions for themselves. In that way, it's exactly like heroin. Heroin is just worse for you and worse for society so we regulate it more thoroughly. As for the spillover effects of black-market heroin, that's why we have the criminal code. We attempt to minimize those spillover effects by implementing criminal punishments harsh enough to discourage its distribution or consumption. Whether we are providing effective dis-incentives is another debate, but the spillover effects of black market heroin are much lower than legalize it. Watch The Wire. Look at Hampsterdam. That image is about right.

I think our drug laws need work, and just simply making all drugs legal wouldn't work. "All drugs" is such a loaded phrase, that anyone who says legalize all drugs really hasn't even thought about the implications.

But this is a digression from the main point. I agree with Ron Paul. If we protect religion, we protect everything. Because all it takes for me to say my religion (Aufan59ism) requires use of heroin, and technically I'm protected under the constitution.

Of course this is silly, as the free protection clause basically enables any behavior(in combination with the 14th). With something as open as the free protection clause, the government must make exceptions, such as Aufan59ism not being protected under the constitution.

But the government deciding which religions are legitimate or reasonable is a complete joke, and hardly separation of church and state(interpreted) or equal protection under the law(explicitly stated). Sorry for the rant, the free exercise clause just confuses the crap out of me.