I agree. I like having them both in the race, and believe that both arguments being presented is important. As a libertarian, not a Republican, I’m actually more in line with Ron Paul’s argument. I simply don’t accept the view of the world that the government has a legitimate power to stop me from ingesting whatever chemical I choose.

That said, I think Ron Paul’s argument won’t convince *any* social conservatives. These are people who feel that they know better than everyone else, and feel completely justified telling people what to do and how to live their lives.

This is where Johnson’s argument holds sway. He can point out that the “harm reduction” strategy is better than incarceration because it’s cheaper and — more importantly — it works. The nations that have tried it generally see less drug-related crime, less collateral damage to substance abuse, etc. All that while not putting so many people behind bars.

I did think Johnson missed one thing, though. Hannity kept asking “do *you* want to pay for their healthcare?!” Johnson could have simply said: “If we put them in jail, we *ARE* paying for their healthcare… And their meals, and their housing, and paying a bunch of people to watch them 24/7. And, we’re paying the salaries of a dramatically larger police force and court system to find and incarcerate them. Even paying for JUST their healthcare is a lot cheaper than that!”

The thing I like about having Ron Paul and Gary Johnson in the race on the drug issue is that people get to hear different reasoning. Paul’s reasoning on drug legalization is the liberty argument (i.e. it’s nobody’s business if you do) while Johnson’s is a more cost/benefit bottom line argument. I fully agree with both arguments because they complement each other.

Now I’m not sure if I fully agree with Johnson on the government’s role as drug/treatment provider (similar to LEAP’s proposal) BUT I do believe this would be a much better cost/benefit than what is being done now (incarceration). For the Hannitys of the world who would criticize Johnson for subsidizing drug use (or welfare, or healthcare, etc.) I would just say by locking these people up we are subsidizing their healthcare, food, and housing anyway.

I think he’s got a better argument than Ron Paul on drugs, at least for trying to convince conservatives. Sean harped on the “Do you want to pay for their heroin?!” argument, but I think Gary understands that EVEN if you get to a situation like Zurich where you’re paying for their heroin, you save SO much money on policing and incarceration that you come out far ahead on all fronts, whether it’s economic, public safety, etc.

Let’s hope a few of Hannity’s regular viewers (which doesn’t include many of the libertarians I know) at least picked up on the message.