PDA

View Full Version : Ron Paul and Marijuana




paulaholic
08-15-2007, 08:15 AM
Many people I talk to about Ron are very receptive, until I get to his stance on the "War on Drugs". Several people have accused me of being a pot smoker myself (I'm not), and others are repulsed at the idea of drugs being legal. I find myself unable to omit this part since it's an important issue that I'm passionate about. How should I effectively sell this delicate subject?

10thAmendmentMan
08-15-2007, 08:17 AM
If the government can make decisions about what you can or can't consume, then why don't they put you on a diet; you're getting kind of chunky and it would be more healthy for you.

^ That one is always sure to win their hearts and minds -- especially women.

Here's the video that came from: http://youtube.com/watch?v=88REf0tjZHo

SwooshOU
08-15-2007, 08:18 AM
Unless someone asks about his view on the legalization of drugs, I won't bring it up.

UtahApocalypse
08-15-2007, 08:20 AM
My friends all love this message. Do I hang with the wrong crowd?

jblosser
08-15-2007, 08:20 AM
Tell them if they want to make things illegal they need authority or they can make anything illegal. Remind them they had to amend the constitutuion to outlaw booze. Point out the horrid results of a police force gone insane with power trying to regulate what people do in their homes; there are by now hundreds of cases of the wrong homes being raided and people being killed for sleeping in bed in the wrong house.

CodeMonkey
08-15-2007, 08:21 AM
The war on drugs is unconstitutional, and you can easily see this by example using alcohol. When alcohol was banned earlier last century it required a constitutional amendment.

Ron Paul's official stance isn't to legalize all drugs, but rather to push it back on the states. The war on drugs is another big government program, and it is out of control.

specsaregood
08-15-2007, 08:24 AM
I'd suggest watching some of the videos and reading info here: http://www.leap.cc/cms/index.php
"Law Enforcement Against Prohibition"

Should get you informed enough to debate the subject.

HammerDR
08-15-2007, 08:26 AM
Omit it.

If you're being stubborn, then the argument is very nuanced. You can cite the DEA's budget (2.4 billion dollars), number of staff (11,000) and number of arrests (30,000) as evidence to support the fact that it is an ineffective role for the government to take.

You should also point out that arrests have been declining as funding has gone up--leading one to believe that throwing money at the administration isn't going to help.

You can use anecdotal evidence of the drug smuggler that was shot by the two border guards. The border guards are going to jail and the smuggler is going free. How can we do such things when large, bureaucratic offices have regulations and rules that hamper their abilities.

You can cite prohibition as an example of making a substance illegal actually increases criminal activity--creating the mob and drug cartels that can buy AK-47s and take over our national parks.

Speaking of those national parks, be sure to mention that drug lords are planting drugs here in our own country. How can we put up with this? If you had an employee that was doing so poorly, you'd fire him and go with another. It's time to fire the DEA.

ButchHowdy
08-15-2007, 08:29 AM
It was legal until 1939, until DuPont and Hearst decided hemp cramped thier industries.

<///////////////////////>

LibertyEagle
08-15-2007, 08:31 AM
I believe drugs should be banned, just like killing yourself is, the government has to have a say in certain parts of what you do. but ill still support paul :D

The hell they do. Unless I infringe on someone else's liberty, it is none of their business what I do.

LibertyEagle
08-15-2007, 08:32 AM
My friends all love this message. Do I hang with the wrong crowd?

No, of course not, but my question to you would be... are they Republicans?

LibertyEagle
08-15-2007, 08:36 AM
Many people I talk to about Ron are very receptive, until I get to his stance on the "War on Drugs". Several people have accused me of being a pot smoker myself (I'm not), and others are repulsed at the idea of drugs being legal. I find myself unable to omit this part since it's an important issue that I'm passionate about. How should I effectively sell this delicate subject?

It's just my opinion, but if you are talking to Republicans, I would leave this issue alone. I mean, is it more important to get them hung up on this issue, or to get across Dr. Paul's traditionally-conservative stances?

ARealConservative
08-15-2007, 08:37 AM
I believe drugs should be banned, just like killing yourself is, the government has to have a say in certain parts of what you do. but ill still support paul :D

This is a tremendously weak straw man.

You immediately force us to take a leap of faith in that drug users mean to do themselves harm, and it is not possible to use drugs responsibly.

But ultimately, your position is immoral. Just like the current tax code allowing the government to decide how much of your own labor you get to keep, the drug law is based on the idea that your body and your property isn't your own.

Politeia
08-15-2007, 08:38 AM
Unless someone asks about his view on the legalization of drugs, I won't bring it up.

Probably the best policy. Just like you don't have to bring up abortion when talking with liberals. It's not necessary to go through the whole laundry list of Dr. Paul's "positions" on "issues", because his campaign, unlike all the others, is not merely a list of positions hastily stitched together. It's all based on a single principle: the Golden Rule. Peace, Freedom & Prosperity; if they want to get into the details, then you can try to explain how freedom for you has to include freedom for me -- even *gasp* freedom for people we (in our acknowledged superiority) might not like.

As for the "drug issue", the example of Prohibition ought to suffice. If they don't "get it" from that, they're unlikely to be willing to hear the truth at all.

"Drugs" are already legal -- only some are more legal than others. As a former marijuana smoker myself, I always found all the alcohol, nicotine and caffeine addicts' criticisms ridiculously hypocritical. I don't use any of them now, and wouldn't recommend any of them, but the libertarian stance is very clear: the government has no right to interfere in anyone's personal life so long as no harm is being done to others.

On the other hand, if they really want to make drugs illegal, then the only consistent approach would be to make all drugs illegal -- including their favorite. Almost everyone in America is addicted to caffeine, which as it is traditionally used is hardly different from the traditional use of cocaine: leaves of the coca plant chewed by South American natives as a pick-me-up. If coffee were illegal, we'd be seeing concentrated caffeine powder sold on streetcorners for shooting up. And all the "best" families would be neck-deep in its illicit trade.

Politeia
08-15-2007, 08:43 AM
I believe drugs should be banned, just like killing yourself is....

I love this. Yeah, suicide should be illegal, and the penalty should be death.

Give me a break.

Politeia
08-15-2007, 08:48 AM
Ron Paul's official stance isn't to legalize all drugs, but rather to push it back on the states.
As a practical matter, of course it's no business of the feddle gummint; but actually, I think his official stance, when asked, is that marijuana, et al., should be no more illegal than other drugs, such as alcohol, nicotine, caffeine, etc. I don't know about coffee, but I know Dr. Paul does not use alcohol (or at least he didn't in 1988, when I had dinner with him, and I doubt he's changed on that score); but as a true libertarian, he does not believe in forcing his morality on others. There are no "victimless crimes".

Politeia
08-15-2007, 08:51 AM
If the government can make decisions about what you can or can't consume, then why don't they put you on a diet; you're getting kind of chunky and it would be more healthy for you.

Here's the video that came from: http://youtube.com/watch?v=88REf0tjZHo
Yeah, I love that clip. Dr. Paul was a real firebrand as a "young" man (52). God bless him.

CodeMonkey
08-15-2007, 08:55 AM
As a practical matter, of course it's no business of the feddle gummint; but actually, I think his official stance, when asked, is that marijuana, et al., should be no more illegal than other drugs, such as alcohol, nicotine, caffeine, etc. I don't know about coffee, but I know Dr. Paul does not use alcohol (or at least he didn't in 1988, when I had dinner with him, and I doubt he's changed on that score); but as a true libertarian, he does not believe in forcing his morality on others. There are no "victimless crimes".

Err, yeah I wasn't too clear. As a libertarian he believes it should be up to personal responsibility, but as the POTUS he would only try to lift the federal ban and let the states make their own rules.

Revolution9
08-15-2007, 08:58 AM
I believe drugs should be banned, just like killing yourself is, the government has to have a say in certain parts of what you do. but ill still support paul :D

How do you feel about diet soft drinks? How about MSG? Howzabout Partially hydrogenated vegetable oil. How do you feel about prescription drugs?

Let's see.. I know nobody who died from pot smoking ever.. L:etha;l dose is just not a reality. I have a mother and her brother in early graves from pharmaceuticals. I watched my former Arts Agent slowly kill hmself with diet Coke. Banning drugs has NEVER worked. It just raises the price and gives criminal cabals large sums of money to be criminals wth. The NWO would not have half or one quarter the terrorist operating funds they have if drugs were leagl and dispensed by physicians or State cotrolled boards. For pot it should be the coffee shop Amsterdam model.

Killng yourself is banned? Just how do they enforce that one?

Best
Randy

Politeia
08-15-2007, 09:11 AM
Killng yourself is banned? Just how do they enforce that one?

Like I said, there's only one appropriate penalty.

ARealConservative
08-15-2007, 09:13 AM
How do you feel about diet soft drinks? How about MSG? Howzabout Partially hydrogenated vegetable oil. How do you feel about prescription drugs?

Let's see.. I know nobody who died from pot smoking ever.. L:etha;l dose is just not a reality. I have a mother and her brother in early graves from pharmaceuticals. I watched my former Arts Agent slowly kill hmself with diet Coke. Banning drugs has NEVER worked. It just raises the price and gives criminal cabals large sums of money to be criminals wth. The NWO would not have half or one quarter the terrorist operating funds they have if drugs were leagl and dispensed by physicians or State cotrolled boards. For pot it should be the coffee shop Amsterdam model.

Killng yourself is banned? Just how do they enforce that one?

Best
Randy

THC is fat soluble. You could theoretically create a lethal does by taking giant hail bays of the drug and cooking it in butter, then eating a massive quantity of the tainted butter.

Dary
08-15-2007, 09:14 AM
How should I effectively sell this delicate subject?

Drug dealers and prohibitionists have a lot in common.

They both want drugs to be illegal.

hells_unicorn
08-15-2007, 09:45 AM
Killng yourself is banned? Just how do they enforce that one?

Best
Randy

The same way that they enforce civil lawsuits when the defendant is unable to pay the damages, they'd have to go after the family, it's equally as absurd as the way in certain backward cultures they would execute members of families if one of the children stole something at the market.

maiki
08-15-2007, 09:46 AM
THC is fat soluble. You could theoretically create a lethal does by taking giant hail bays of the drug and cooking it in butter, then eating a massive quantity of the tainted butter.

I don't think this is actually possible. There was a DEA report on how much THC you'd need to consume and how quickly to die, and it was pretty much physically impossible. You are more likely to die from eating all that butter before you die from the THC. I think it is easier to die from consuming too many potatoes than it is to die from THC according to the report.

Revolution9
08-15-2007, 09:48 AM
No, of course not, but my question to you would be... are they Republicans?

Here is the rub I like.. They will be Republicans. Then what are the neo-old school going to do when they have to tip toe around us..,heheh:eek: We can just tell them if they are for all that control nanny state stuff they should be Democrats..pwned!:cool:

Best Regards
Randy

IRO-bot
08-15-2007, 09:51 AM
I believe drugs should be banned, just like killing yourself is, the government has to have a say in certain parts of what you do. but ill still support paul :D

ROFL. No offense but, how is killking yourself banned? How does the government prevent this? LOL. It is just funny the way you say it.

Sematary
08-15-2007, 09:51 AM
Many people I talk to about Ron are very receptive, until I get to his stance on the "War on Drugs". Several people have accused me of being a pot smoker myself (I'm not), and others are repulsed at the idea of drugs being legal. I find myself unable to omit this part since it's an important issue that I'm passionate about. How should I effectively sell this delicate subject?

It's very simple. He believes that it should be up to the states - as per the constitution, to legislate on the issue of drugs. His stance is simply that the federal government has no business being involved with this.

Revolution9
08-15-2007, 09:52 AM
I don't think this is actually possible. There was a DEA report on how much THC you'd need to consume and how quickly to die, and it was pretty much physically impossible. You are more likely to die from eating all that butter before you die from the THC. I think it is easier to die from consuming too many potatoes than it is to die from THC according to the report.

Houston's Armed Forces Mediacal Center (whatever it is fficially called) uses massive washes of THC on its brain urgery patients to protect the brain and neural functions from oxidization. If it was toxic at all this would send the patient into death throes. As well there is an Anandamine receptor site in all animals down to the fruit fly. This plant and animals have a long history with each other. The anandamine receptor is an exact lock and key fit for the THC molecule.

Best Regards
Randy

LibertyEagle
08-15-2007, 10:05 AM
Here is the rub I like.. They will be Republicans. Then what are the neo-old school going to do when they have to tip toe around us..,heheh:eek: We can just tell them if they are for all that control nanny state stuff they should be Democrats..pwned!:cool:



LOL. Well, you might be better at getting this across than I am. I'm having a hard enough time getting them over their brainwashed belief that 1. Iraq had nothing to do with 9-11 and 2. Us leaving isn't going to increase the likelihood that we will be attacked here. 3. Dr. Paul isn't some kind of wuss; rather he actually wants to go after the people who attacked us. So, once I get past this, if I threw the whole drug legalization thing in, I think I would lose them totally. To me, it's not worth it at this point. But, like I said, maybe you're better at presenting the case than I am.

Bradley in DC
08-15-2007, 10:12 AM
Dr. Paul doesn't want to divert FEDERAL resources (DEA, etc.) from FEDERAL responsibilities such as national security and the nexus of drugs and terrorism to arrest chemo patients, et al.

jj111
08-15-2007, 10:13 AM
Know your audience.
In printed materials tailor it to your audience.
To liberal democrats in Bay Area we have a flyer which says RP would not allow federal gov't to interfere with California upholding its medicinal marijuana laws. It doesn't even mention legalizing all drugs.

For a conservative audience, we have different fliers which do not mention medicinal marijuana but mention more traditional conservative issues.

If talking one on one with the person, ask THEM what are the important political issues for THEM.

If they seem to disagree with you, give them a little flyer on RP and say, "if you check this guy out on Google Video you will probably like what you see" and move on.

There are many that are natural targets for our message. For most people, it is still a matter of name recognition. Let people know about RP, let them ask you questions, encourage them to look him up on internet.

It is probably wasting time to spend arguing with people against positions that they have firm opinions about.

If somebody really doesn't like RP at all, move on to the next stranger.

ARealConservative
08-15-2007, 10:28 AM
I don't think this is actually possible. There was a DEA report on how much THC you'd need to consume and how quickly to die, and it was pretty much physically impossible. You are more likely to die from eating all that butter before you die from the THC. I think it is easier to die from consuming too many potatoes than it is to die from THC according to the report.

I bet the report dealt purely with smoking the drug and not other delivery mechanisms.

0zzy
08-15-2007, 02:26 PM
I believe drugs should be banned, just like killing yourself is, the government has to have a say in certain parts of what you do. but ill still support paul :D

ROFL

"He killed himself? Through him in jail!"

constituent
08-15-2007, 02:40 PM
as a side note... i mentioned this in a hot topics thread:

the best thing the legalize drugs crowd can do is tell their 'friends' about ron paul. place adverts in high times, head shops, and on pay phones (i'm not joking). can you say ron paul blotter (i am joking)?

maiki
08-15-2007, 02:43 PM
I bet the report dealt purely with smoking the drug and not other delivery mechanisms.

It did, however, but your stomach is only so large, and things are not infinitely soluble. And eating too much butter can be pretty terrible for you.

constituent
08-15-2007, 02:53 PM
and just for the hell of it...

i saw a study once talking about how people who've smoked for many years do not show deficits in their functioning as compared to non-smokers... however, when high, experienced smokers actually show improved cognitive function.

also, psilocybin is excellent for speech and language development skills, there was a study once that showed its benefits particularly for children under the age of 6 or something like that...

don't have the sources on that right now, but if you look around you'll find 'em.

ARealConservative
08-15-2007, 02:57 PM
and just for the hell of it...

i saw a study once talking about how people who've smoked for many years do not show deficits in their functioning as compared to non-smokers... however, when high, experienced smokers actually show improved cognitive function.

also, psilocybin is excellent for speech and language development skills, there was a study once that showed its benefits particularly for children under the age of 6 or something like that...

don't have the sources on that right now, but if you look around you'll find 'em.

psilocybin can be extremely lethal for young children.

Stick with Mozart at that age!

constituent
08-15-2007, 03:07 PM
i'm not advocating giving it to kids... just mentioning that i saw a study, i'll put some effort into finding that source for ya, if you're interested...


and just for chuckles...

what's the difference between regular lethal and extremely lethal?

brumans
08-15-2007, 03:14 PM
Psilocybin is relatively harmless and is no way lethal.. not sure where you're getting your "facts" from.

Jennifer Reynolds
08-15-2007, 03:15 PM
///

MusoSpuso
08-15-2007, 03:18 PM
I believe drugs should be banned, just like killing yourself is, the government has to have a say in certain parts of what you do. but ill still support paul :D

I hope you're kidding...

Revolution9
08-15-2007, 03:58 PM
LOL. Well, you might be better at getting this across than I am. I'm having a hard enough time getting them over their brainwashed belief that 1. Iraq had nothing to do with 9-11 and 2. Us leaving isn't going to increase the likelihood that we will be attacked here. 3. Dr. Paul isn't some kind of wuss; rather he actually wants to go after the people who attacked us. So, once I get past this, if I threw the whole drug legalization thing in, I think I would lose them totally. To me, it's not worth it at this point. But, like I said, maybe you're better at presenting the case than I am.

I just present myself. They will know I smoke..but they will also have dined at the restaurant HQ that my landmark sculpture sits in front of. They aven't jack to say that wpuld fit.. They would just chalk e uop as one of them crazy intellectual artist types..that smokes pot.. Funny thing is that if they would tone down some of the radical shit.. that we call repug we would actually agree on one hell of alot of things.

I intend on attanding all GOP local functions in my revolutionary era boots, marron and black velevet jacket and museum replica tricorn hat I have for the RP rallies. I will also carry my Gadsen Minutemen Don't Tread On Me Flag and Old Glory ala Betsy Ross. heh.. They will know a new wing of the party has arrived. The ultraviolet wing:eek:

Best Regards
Randy

Scribbler de Stebbing
08-15-2007, 04:02 PM
Guys, this is no different than abortion or jaywalking. (Sorry if this argument has been made.) STATES, not the federal government, are to decide criminal code. It is simply not something for the federal government to mess with. If Minnesota wants to ban caffeine, well, I guess we'll all take afternoon naps. If California wants to have heroin cafes, groovy.

But as someone else said, no need to volunteer the drug legalization issue unless asked. It's difficult to both persuade for a candidate and to educate in one blow. Either debate someone on the war or on drugs, OR convince them to vote for Ron Paul, but you're not going to simultaneously argue with them and convince them for your candidate at once.

Revolution9
08-15-2007, 04:06 PM
and just for the hell of it...

i saw a study once talking about how people who've smoked for many years do not show deficits in their functioning as compared to non-smokers... however, when high, experienced smokers actually show improved cognitive function.

also, psilocybin is excellent for speech and language development skills, there was a study once that showed its benefits particularly for children under the age of 6 or something like that...

don't have the sources on that right now, but if you look around you'll find 'em.

Here is the reason for that "blank stare" look. Scientists at University of Calgary had developed a THC analog that was 100 times more psychotropic than natural THC. They got mice high on it and then looked at their dendrites. To their surprise new dendrites were forming a broccolli like structures..very dense.. So what happens with good pot is that new neural networks are formed and the person has not yet filled them with morphological imagery and associations yet, hence the "blank" look... The more expreience smokers have better cognisance due to increased bloodflow and enhanced scalar morphology embedment from experience. They know how to deal with mind expansion.

On another note. Any MK ULTRA slave is allowed any and all drugs by their handlers..except..tadadadada dada! marijuana..which breaks the programming in as little as one session. Why do they not wanting you smoking the stuff??

Best Regards
Randy

JaylieWoW
08-15-2007, 04:12 PM
It was legal until 1939, until DuPont and Hearst decided hemp cramped thier industries.

<///////////////////////>

Ding Ding Ding... Tell him what he's won!

I could go on for days about this issue. Matter of fact I told a friend about Ron Paul and that he should look him up. After visiting ronpaul2008.com he returned and said he agrees with most everything except…. Iraq War & Legalizing Drugs. How did he put it.... "he's just another one of those guys who wants to legalize drugs so the government can tax it." Of course I immediately corrected him. His stance is that the War on Drugs isn't working, we need to look at other alternatives.

(Note: this is the 3rd or 4th person who I've spoken to after telling them to research Ron Paul that has come back and said exactly the same thing about the "legalizing drugs so we can tax it")

I didn’t try to argue Iraq with him. Either you figure it out yourself and see through the BS or you don’t.

I did however tell him that though on the surface I can see why anyone would be against legalizing drugs, that once you really dig in and do some research on it, you ultimately understand how insane it is to criminalize vices.

I asked him, “do you do drugs?”

He replied “no, I would never do drugs”

So I asked him, “then how would legalizing drugs change your opinion of drugs?”
He replied “It wouldn’t, but too many people like them too much and would do anything to get them”

So I told him, “You’re right, there ARE criminals who also use drugs, however, a large percentage of those in prison are NON-VIOLENT drug offenders, meaning they just got caught with drugs, they weren’t stealing, mugging or killing to get them, they just got caught having them”.

I continued when he didn’t respond, “besides, has imprisoning people (non violent users) done ANYTHING to lower usage?, You could speculatively say that it must have done something to lower usage, but there really is NO PROOF and based on the growing not diminishing # of arrests I think the proof is that its not working to lower drug usage”

Further, I would speculate that the “craze” about insisting that if they were legal more people would do them is garbage as well.” “Look at it from this angle, if there ARE people who stay away from them BECAUSE they are illegal, don’t you think they are going to mostly be responsible in their usage as well?”

Besides, drug usage is a form of self-medication. Someone who is looking for a “high” and needs to use drugs constantly in order to hold their heads up each day have some other problem for which the drugs are nothing but a symptom.

He replies, “I can see where you’re coming from but it just seems insane to even consider it, don’t you think?”

I reply, “it seemed insane to me at first too, until I really started thinking about it and researching it on my own. Now it makes much more sense than what we are currently doing. Bottom line is you can’t force “human action”. All attempts by every government since the beginning of recorded history (and beyond I'm sure) to do so have met with bad results including: higher taxation because they have to house all those NON VIOLENT people who break laws designed to legislate morality (vices) rather than legislating protection of individual freedom. Besides, I really think churches and other non-profit charitable organizations are going to do the best job of teaching hard core users how to live without drugs. My best friend is a prime example. Just do me a favor and look up these articles….”

From there I sent him to some articles on Mises.org.

He may not come around and may still stand firm, but at least I could tell he was thinking about it because he said, “I can see where you’re coming from….”

Anyway, just thought I’d share this with everyone on this thread. Even my MOTHER who has never even had alcohol in her life agrees that what we are doing (jailing non-violent users) isn’t working and the cost is FAR outweighing the benefit. Matter of fact, my mother thinks that we are TEACHING them to become criminals by sending them to jail.

DjLoTi
08-15-2007, 04:18 PM
"The war on drugs". In any conflict, you have two sides to an issue. On one side, it's the federal government. On the other side, it's 13 states. Why is the government waging a war against itself? 13 states have legalized medical marijuana, and that's as of May. It could be more now. There's nothing to can argue with me on that point.

The federal government is spending billions of dollars to stop something the state governments have already legalized. If the 'war on drugs' is the 'issue', ask people to take a side. The state governments, or the federal governments?

Then, if they choose the federal government, well.. I haven't got that far. You can get creative.

constituent
08-15-2007, 04:26 PM
djloti-

break out the bong hits 4 jesus sign... then run.

Revolution9
08-15-2007, 05:00 PM
Dont hate on me, im in high school and school would be so much better without the drugs, only cause certain kids do it, its retarded, i beliee government should regulate trans fat foods defintley, and id support the lagalization of marijuana as a prescription drug, not for recreational.

How many kids in your school are forced to tale ritalin? Are you aware of the numbers taking aderol?

If someone has nervous tension from modern societal conditions, bad workplace, bills always coming in and they smoke a bowl and sit down and read and surf the net and do artwork, get an appetite that wasn't there and go to sleep waking up refreshed fr another day..something alcohol is notoriously bad for.. is this medicinal or recreational? If medicinal should they have to pay a doctors fee so he can simply sign a document stating you are allowed to smoke? Would people be allowed to grow their own if the medical and distributing cartels were in control of the network for distribution? Should a plant that has intimate body connections to the nervous system of ALL animals higher than the fruit fly on the tree of life and intimately tied to man's agricultural and cultural development be outlawed when it is a part of nature? Can you be criminally liable for externaly possessing a substance the body makes internally?

Got some thinking to do there sonny.

Best Regards
Randy

BarryDonegan
08-15-2007, 05:11 PM
the classic libertarian stance on this, is that prohibition of vice is wrong for 2 reasons:

one it empowers organized crime(making the streets more dangerous)

2. it empowers the prison industrial complex, where prisons lobby for stiffer laws so they can get cheap labor, and outsource their enslaved labor force to do subhuman wage labor.

another good argument is that the prohibition of drugs makes our criminal population unsustainable, causing violent criminals to often come up on parole faster. basically, you can either lock up a guy who is in his home smoking pot, or put a sex predator or killer in there. but theres not infinate room, and theres a whole lot more pot smokers than killers.

legalizing vice takes the products out of the hands of gangsters and drug czars, and allows the price to drop... a lot of drugs are only significantly harmful due to their unaffordability, cocaine is a great example of this, its not as much toxic as it is unaffordable yet addictive, meaning people who become addicted to it have to go into financial failure to stay high.

use cigarettes and alcohol as your example, there was a time when al capone ruled the underworld due to his control over provision of the service of alcohol.

illegality also increases the psychological "fun factor" for teens to experiment with it.

you can also site, that there has never been a stat ever put together by any socialogical or criminal theory group to say that prohibition of vice has a positive effect on society as far as crime stats, etc. people continue to use them, when illegal, and our whole government is based on a contract between its citizens and the govt called the constitution.

this contract should protect our rights and property and enforce other contracts between people in the community. im with lysander spooner on this one. vices do not violate anyones natural rights, nor their rights with the government. if someone uses a vice substance and behaves thereupon ina way that violates the rights of others, they have committed a pursuant crime and should be punished.

the same is true with prostitution, this is a legal contract of the willing between two consenting people, to exchange money for sex. in the past, when dowrys were offered for marriage, this was a similar practice. marriage is also a sexual congress which is contractually obliged and protected by law. how this differs from prostitution is philosophical, and not a part of our nation's law. however, this is not federally banned as there are states in the union which have legalized this. its an example, though, of the sortof Lysander Spooner idealogy that any contract between consenting individuals should be honored, and the constitution should also be a contract between consenting individuals. as of right now, the constitution held by the government is in violation of your civil rights, and is in breech.

this is why we're having to rally behind ron paul.

i would say, historically, that the constitution came in breech at the lysander spooner moment, the civil war, when people decided to opt out of their contract and were held by force against their will into the union.

that damage, the 14th ammendment that followed that was used to make corporations into individuals, and the 16th ammendment have stolen our country, and voided the constitution.

Richie
08-15-2007, 05:58 PM
bump

DeadheadForPaul
08-15-2007, 06:05 PM
Many people I talk to about Ron are very receptive, until I get to his stance on the "War on Drugs". Several people have accused me of being a pot smoker myself (I'm not), and others are repulsed at the idea of drugs being legal. I find myself unable to omit this part since it's an important issue that I'm passionate about. How should I effectively sell this delicate subject?

Why bring up the subject at all? Dr. Paul has not talked about it?

I have not once mentioned the Drug War unless it's with one of my hippie friends lol

The less you talk, the better. Focus on the core issues. 99% of people don't care about the Drug War. Stick to limited government, secure borders, lower taxes, and bringing our troops home

ARealConservative
08-15-2007, 06:18 PM
Psilocybin is relatively harmless and is no way lethal.. not sure where you're getting your "facts" from.

http://www.namyco.org/toxicology/poisoning.html

A very few severe reactions, including fevers and deaths, have been reported in contexts of psilocybin poisoning of small children; "grazing" accidents by toddlers should be treated in a hospital.

ARealConservative
08-15-2007, 06:19 PM
Why bring up the subject at all? Dr. Paul has not talked about it?

I have not once mentioned the Drug War unless it's with one of my hippie friends lol

The less you talk, the better. Focus on the core issues. 99% of people don't care about the Drug War. Stick to limited government, secure borders, lower taxes, and bringing our troops home

He talked about the issue in Fairfield, Iowa - Specifically Medical Marijuana and Hemp production (and state rights of said activity).

DeadheadForPaul
08-15-2007, 06:21 PM
He talked about the issue in Fairfield, Iowa - Specifically Medical Marijuana and Hemp production (and state rights of said activity).

He hasn't mentioned it in any major speeches like the Iowa straw poll

McDermit
08-15-2007, 06:58 PM
as a side note... i mentioned this in a hot topics thread:

the best thing the legalize drugs crowd can do is tell their 'friends' about ron paul. place adverts in high times, head shops, and on pay phones (i'm not joking). can you say ron paul blotter (i am joking)?

yeeeeep. we gave out 4000 flyers at a Kottonmouth Kings concert this week. There were under 2000 people there. TONS of people asked for flyers to give their friends, dealers, etc. lol.

DjLoTi
08-15-2007, 06:59 PM
KMK! Yea-yuhhhh!!!

Talk about a huge underground movement that, if correctly directed, could make a big impact.

McDermit
08-15-2007, 07:08 PM
KMK! Yea-yuhhhh!!!

Talk about a huge underground movement that, if correctly directed, could make a big impact.

Haha. Yeah. We got flyers into the hands of Richter, Pak, and Daddy X.. Tech N9ne too. X seemed the most interested, by far. Pak is doing his stupid "write in 2008" nonsense though.. so I'm not sure what will happen there. It would be nice if they used their heads and got their fans to support RP instead of partaking in his silly novelty campaign.

Tech n9ne came invited us back to chill after the show and said RP sounded "fresh." lol. Took a stack of the Ozzfest flyers and some tri-folds too.


At the very least, a bunch of people from the show are now spreading the word to their friends.

DjLoTi
08-15-2007, 07:09 PM
No way! That is dope! Tech N9ne giving respect to RP. So, you were like, kicking it with the Tech N9ne crew and was just like, "Yo, Ron Paul, he's legit. Check him out"

I've got to hear more.

Kuldebar
08-15-2007, 07:12 PM
The Ames Iowa Straw Poll could have been even more of a success if we had distributed special brownies throughout the event.

McDermit
08-15-2007, 07:16 PM
Dont hate on me, im in high school and school would be so much better without the drugs, only cause certain kids do it, its retarded, i beliee government should regulate trans fat foods defintley, and id support the lagalization of marijuana as a prescription drug, not for recreational.

As Ron Paul says, the government can not make you a better person.

Whether weed, alcohol, trans fat, etc. is legal or not, people will still use it. It's up to the individual to make good (healthy) decisions. It's not the federal government's place.

The war on drugs is an absolute failure - the fact that kids in your class smoke weed is evidence enough of such. All that federal involvement does is waste money and resources.


As far as trans fats go, that's not the federal government's place either. Parents need to step up and control their children's diets. Individual states or schools can choose to eliminate the usage of trans fats in their schools, but it shouldn't be a federal issue. Personal responsibility needs to come back into play at some point... and that point is NOW.

USPatriot36
08-15-2007, 07:28 PM
If the people you run into are against drugs then their is no reason to bring it up. Stick to areas where people agree with Ron Paul.

McDermit
08-15-2007, 07:32 PM
No way! That is dope! Tech N9ne giving respect to RP. So, you were like, kicking it with the Tech N9ne crew and was just like, "Yo, Ron Paul, he's legit. Check him out"

I've got to hear more.

Haha, yeah.. basically. A group of us (7) had backstage passes as well as passes to a meet and greet with all the bands on the tour. We started handing out flyers to people at the M&G, and on of my buddies asked all the guys to sign one. He got 4 KMK members to sign, tech n9ne, and the dirtball. The tech n9ne dude was like "can i get one of those?" so we gave him a few, and a couple of the guys from kmk were standing with him, so we gave each of them a stack too. Brad (Daddy X of KMK) read both sides, and said he was gonna have to check him out. That was pretty much it for the M&G.

When tech n9ne came off the stage, he disappeared for a few, then came back to the side of the stage where we were and had us follow them backstage again. He asked how much we were getting paid to rep Ron Paul. lol. He was suprised to find out that we were doing it all on our own. Had a couple questions about RP's stance on medical marijuana specifically, and said he'd been to a couple protests in Cali with KMK. He seemed impressed, and asked for some flyers. So we gave him probably 100 of the Ozzfest flyers, and I had about 20 trifolds that I gave him. The rest of the show, we just chilled and didn't really talk about RP.

McDermit
08-15-2007, 08:20 PM
To the original poster: I strongly recommend that you don't bring up RP's stance on drugs unless asked. You're sabotaging your efforts.

You never want to bring up controversial issues when introducing newcomers to Ron Paul. NEVER. Unless you are 99% certain that they will agree with him. It doesn't matter what secondary issues you are passionate about when campaigning for Ron Paul. Getting Ron Paul elected is your primary concern. Your purpose is to convert voters and get RP elected. That's it. Your goal isn't to convince others to subscribe to your beliefs about drugs. If you want to do that, turn it into a seperate activity. Mentioning Ron Paul's stance on every issue is unnecessary and often detrimental to your efforts. Counterproductive. Not good.


You don't see Fred Heads yelling from the top of mountains that Freddy boy voted against importing prescription meds from Canada and including prescription meds under Medicare.. and against medical savings accounts. You won't hear a Mitt Witt yammering on about how great it is that Mitt flip flopped on gun control or abortion. Similarly, we shouldn't be highlighting the potentially negative aspects of RP's campaign. You leave it out. If someone asks, fine. But we don't want to go scaring off potential supporters.

You want to give them enough to get them interested, but unless they ask, you don't want to give them a feature length biography. Talk up a point or two, give them some literature, and then walk away. Let them find the details on their own.

Geronimo
08-15-2007, 08:28 PM
The Marijuana Conspiracy, on Google video, might bring some enlightenment.

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-7215884908568593154

krott5333
08-15-2007, 10:05 PM
Remind them that marijuana is a naturally grown plant and how proposterous is it for the government to ban something that is found in nature.

stevedasbach
08-15-2007, 10:14 PM
Technically, Dr. Paul's position on drugs is the same as many other issues -- let states decide. Legalization implies to many people the federal government making all drugs legal under all circumstances (e.g. kids buying crack).

Focus on letting states decide and use the Feds arresting medical pot users in states where the people voted to make it legal as an example of why federal drug laws need to be repealed.

BarryDonegan
08-15-2007, 10:41 PM
psylocibin or whatever you spell it is toxic at a 3.5 grams i believe, a quarter ounce of it in a sitting will put you at serious health risk. LSD and cocaine individually are not specifically lethal however, and the toxicity level of a single dose of THC is probably unachievable by mistake.

Marc Scott Emery
08-15-2007, 10:45 PM
George Washington was the largest landowner in the 13 colonies from 1765 to 1787, holding the largest estate in all of America. One of his principal cash crops were thousands of acres of cannabis sativa. Yes, you heard me right, the Founding Father was America's original 'drug' lord of incredible-never-since-then quanties of the very same plant that was unconstitutionally banned in 1937 through illegal federal taxation (Harrison Act, Marijuana Stamp Tax). Washington was a pipe smoker and wrote extensively in his diaries about his many varieties of hemp, cannabis, and his diaries show incredible detail and observations about the nature and utility of the cannabis plant.

Thomas Jefferson also was an advocate and this can be found in his own writings.

When speaking about drugs, do not use the term 'legalizing drugs', instead try 'Repeal Prohibition'. Older people understand the alcohol prohibition period and the machine-gun toting gangs, corrupt paid-off cops, the violence on the streets. As soon as alcohol prohibition was ended in 1933 (with the only repeal of a constitutional amendment ever! - the 21st Amendment in 1933 repealed the 18th Amendment of 1919- The Volstead Act), the last gangster of the Prohibition era was captured or killed by 1936. Gang violence was dramatically reduced and every person from that era knew it was because alcohol prohibition was reversed.

However, Drug Prohibition was enacted (inexplicably without any constitutional amendments as was required for alcohol prohibition) in 1937 and all the ex-G men in the ATF of its day were hired on by the Federal Bureau of Narcotics, and thus began marijuana prohibition.

The difference between alcohol and marijuana, is that in the 1930's tens of millions of Americans drank alcohol but less than 150,000 people in America (almost all blacks, hispanics and jazz lovers actually) consumed marijuana. The first person convicted of marijuana possession received a 4 year sentence in 1938 and was sentenced to four years in Leavenworth Pen in Kansas.

However, in the 1960's, hundreds of thousands of US soldiers in Vietnam and elsewhere, along with tens of millions of university and college students turned on to pot, and this was Richard Nixon's wet dream, round up the jews, the communists, the anti-war types, anyone and everyone who smoked pot was considered Unamerican by the paranoid Nixon.

Since 1956, 27 million people worldwide have been arrested for pot, 6 million have spent more than one year in jail for pot and 16 million Americans have been arrested for marijuana since 1966. Over 2 million Americans (out of that 6 million total) have spent at least one year in jail for exclusively cannabis related 'crimes'. Its a shocking abuse that has spanned 3 generations of Americans.

The War on Drugs or Prohibition has been the principle cause for the overall erosion of our Constitutional freedoms and rights. The US Supreme Court has validated wire-tapping, entrapment, no-knock warrants, paramilitary action in the US, deprived the sick & dying of cannabis, endorsed espionage on US citizens, condoned deportation of immigrants found with cannabis, infiltration of ordinary groups of Americans, suspended the second Amendment, endorsed warrantless searches, condoned forfeiture of propery, and dozens of unconstitutional invasions of our human decency, our human rights, our property rights.

Prohibition serves no good other than the concentration of violent federal power. Prohibition does not EVER accomplish any of its stated aims, it in fact, creates gangs, murder, police corruption, massive jail populations (55,000 are in state & federal prisons at any given time for ONLY marijuana related offenses!), exploding federal expenditures (its too shockingly high a cost to be unbelieveable, estimated to be $180 billion since 1965), disdain for the sick & dying who need medical cannabis. It has torn millions of children from their parents for various periods of time which science has found is the greatest contributor to the cause of substance abuse --- that is, missing fathers!

Ron Paul's solution is to Repeal Prohibition , end the Income Tax which allows government to spend vast sums on empires, wars, and Prohibition, return control to the States and state referendums, where drugs would be taxed at the state or local level. Ron Paul has in the last 12 months voted to cancel the appropriations budget of the Drug Czar (lost 399 to 5), co-sponsored The States Rights To Medical Marijuana Act (Hinchey-Rohrabacher amendment, lost 259 - 164) and The Steve Williams Truth in Trials Act. Ron Paul is the chief sponsor and only Republican to put forward the 2007 Industrial Hemp Act.

Marc Scott Emery
08-15-2007, 10:48 PM
psylocibin or whatever you spell it is toxic at a 3.5 grams i believe, a quarter ounce of it in a sitting will put you at serious health risk. LSD and cocaine individually are not specifically lethal however, and the toxicity level of a single dose of THC is probably unachievable by mistake.

This is completely incorrect. I have consumed up to 20 grams of psylocin mushrooms, numerous times more than 5 grams. There are no serious health risks whatsoever and there are extremely few cases of death recorded, possibly no more than 20 cases in 30+ years, and that is likely to be in combination with other drugs or pre-existing health conditions.

I

Marc Scott Emery
08-15-2007, 10:58 PM
Alcohol prohibition was effected only when women received the right to vote. Once tens of millions of women got a political voice, prohibition was passed within 6 months. Prohibitions were tried at local levels, county levels and state levels but were always unsuccessful and thwarted. Typically, men do not favor prohibitions of drugs, booze and sex (brothels) except if they are of a puritanical religious bent, but women perceived their gender as being abused by millions of men who became violent or abusive to their spouses and children under the influence of alcohol.

In 1900 though, most over the counter heroin and morphne was consumed by about 1 million to 1.5 million US women, who enjoyed the heavy narcotics because it numbed the pain of spousal abuse (re: alcohol & the chauvinism of the day), childrearing, tooth aches (so common 100 years ago), arthritis, coughs, and the daily rigors of being a mother of large families in some degree of poverty. A bottle of heroin tablets by Bayer was 25 tablets for 50 cents to $1. There were no social problems associated with this mass habituation of opiates because they were cheap, legal, and largely consumed addictively by women. Women under opiates were quiet, hard working and uncomplaining, and in 1900, thats how America like its women.

DjLoTi
08-15-2007, 11:02 PM
Wow. Crazy but true. When you learn the truth, the future seems so much brighter. When you're not lied to by the government, and you just know the facts, things become so much easier.

Ron Paul is really going to create sensibility in so many areas that have been dying for it for so long.

Marc Scott Emery
08-15-2007, 11:14 PM
Its 45 minutes with Jodie & Marc Emery about our Ron Paul activism, and touches a little on the issues of Prohibition. Hopefully you can hear it on Ron Paul Radio beginning Sunday or Monday!

DjLoTi
08-15-2007, 11:16 PM
Hey I wrote you back, you can upload it to www.Mediafire.com and send me the link. :)

Roxi
08-15-2007, 11:56 PM
yeah next thing you know they are going to want to ban ferrets..... oh wait... already done

Man from La Mancha
08-16-2007, 01:05 AM
I had my banner over the free way above the traffic below and it was slow some tanagers gave me the finger and I shouted down Ron wants legalize pot, then they were all smiles.

Craig_R
08-16-2007, 01:41 AM
I'd say everybody who really wants to do drugs already does them, making them legal is only going to put a halt to the criminal element of it all - hence less crime.

BenIsForRon
08-16-2007, 06:44 AM
I think we need a government program to manufacture LSD and make it freely available to the populous to facilitate the evolution of human consciousness...





just joking... kinda

Jon S
08-16-2007, 06:46 AM
I think we need a government program to manufacture LSD and make it freely available to the populous to facilitate the evolution of human consciousness...





just joking... kinda

i second that motion

kinda

Duckman
08-16-2007, 07:13 AM
Interesting conversation.

I'll admit that my own personal marijuana use helped get me interested in libertarian ideas. I grew up in the "D.A.R.E. generation," and I had very conservative parents, and I spent most of my life thinking that street drugs were something people did only if they wanted to harm themselves or commit suicide, which I think might be similar to the line of thinking that Hamadeh had when he wrote his comments.

But I met someone in college who was very smart, made good grades in a hard technical major, but smoked pot privately at his apartment. He didn't get me to try it, but he did open my mind to the concept that drugs were a recreational activity and not an act of desperation, could be done responsibly, were not necessarily incompatible with being an "achiever," and perhaps should not be illegal.

After college, I moved to Seattle for a job (I had lived in Florida prior to that) and when I got out there I saw a radically different attitude towards pot from the general public out there. Most people my age (20-ish) feel that marijuana is a safer recreational drug than alcohol, and that it is twisted and backwards that marijuana should be illegal while alcohol remains legal. (Personally I feel they should both be legal, but some out there would like to see the situation reversed).

I met many people who smoked and they convinced me to try it by swearing it was better and less harmful than alcohol, and you know what, in retrospect I would agree. I have been an occasional/moderate user since then, even though I have since returned to Florida. I enjoy MJ and it has never caused me to do anything that I would feel has jeapordized my career, health, financial well being, friendships, relationships, or anything else.

The ONLY negative I can ascribe to my personal marijuana use has been the fact that it has opened me up to potential criminal penalties if the state should find out. Luckily, I am discreet and this has yet to happen. But I found this to be such a gross injustice that it got me interested in libertarian philosophy.

The more I read about libertarian philosophy, the more convinced I became of its merits, across the board. Liberty is invaluable, and personal freedom is key.

The drug war continues unhindered because the state has brainwashed people into believing drugs are much worse than they actually are, and that there is no recourse for society except for armed SWAT teams engaged in "war" against users and suppliers. In light of this situation, progress in changing attitudes and laws will be slow. But change is possible, I am living proof.

Also, I think it's awesome that Marc Scott Emery posts on this forum. Thanks Marc!

theblatanttruth
08-16-2007, 07:44 AM
THC is fat soluble. You could theoretically create a lethal does by taking giant hail bays of the drug and cooking it in butter, then eating a massive quantity of the tainted butter.

Haha I'm sure I could kill myself with a Q-tip too if I tried hard enough... what's your point?

CurtisLow
08-19-2007, 03:55 PM
Drug arrests = felon. / felon's can't vote.

So that's over a million people that can't vote. Do you think the right wing agenda was thinking about this on the war on drugs. U-Bet your ass.

CurtisLow
08-19-2007, 04:07 PM
RE:

Equal Justice?

Mary Winkler is out of jail. She served 67 days after her conviction for shooting her husband in the back as he lay in bed and killing him. Now she’ll go back to work at the dry cleaners in McMinnville, Tennessee, and seek to regain custody of her children.

Meanwhile, Will Foster was sentenced to 93 years for using marijuana to relieve the pain of his acute rheumatoid arthritis. An appeals court reduced the sentence to 20 years, and Gov. Frank Keating made him serve more than four years before granting him parole.

A few miles from Mary Winkler in Tennessee, 57-year-old Bernie Ellis has been confined for the past 18 months to a halfway house. His crime? Growing marijuana to treat a degenerative condition in his hips and spine. A public health epidemiologist specializing in substance abuse, he also provided pot to some other sick people. 10 officers of the Tennessee Marijuana Eradication Task Force swooped in to put a stop to that, and to try to seize his farm as well.

In a more just world, Tennessee would set up a Murder Eradication Task Force, leave Bernie Ellis alone, and give Mary Winkler a tad more than 67 days for shooting her husband to death.



Whens this injustice going to stop!

devil21
08-19-2007, 04:25 PM
When I broach this topic I always go straight to an analogy regarding alcohol and prohibition. Alcohol was outlawed as evil and it subsequently turned the trade of alcohol into an organized crime operation that caused more problems than it solved. Once people woke up and realized prohibition was pointless alcohol was again legalized as it is today. Are there people with alcohol problems today? Yes! But are there enough problems to justify banning it again? No! The same argument applies to drugs, particularly marijuana. Prohibition causes more problems for society than it fixes. People are going to (ab)use substances whether they are legal or illegal, its just human nature.

EDIT: Forgot how to tie it in to Dr. Paul's views. Dr. Paul believes that drugs should not be a legal or illegal designation by the federal government but rather a decision by each respective state and that state's citizens. If Connecticut wants to ban cocaine, fine, it will still be banned. The issue is about your right to do what you wish to yourself without the feds trying to protect you from yourself. Numerous states (12) have medical marijuana laws on the books but recently California has been getting stormed with DEA shutting down dispensaries! Dispensaries that the citizens voted FOR! Dr. Paul believes this type of action by the feds is outside of the scope of the Constitution and therefore should cease.

itsnobody
08-19-2007, 05:03 PM
People don't realize how many problems legalizing marijuana would solve, the drug dealers and drug lords are all very happy that drugs are illegal, they'll keep making their money...if drugs were legalized there would be no more drug dealers on the streets, there would be less crime, the drug usage would probably be the same as it is right now (which is pretty high), the economy would grow tremendously, it would be just like how cigarettes are legal...

I don't understand why anyone thinks that drugs being illegal really does anything...right now drugs are illegal and drug usage is at it's highest, drugs being illegal doesn't make less people use it nor does it make the world safer nor better...it really doesn't do anything positive at all...

hard@work
08-19-2007, 05:51 PM
I believe drugs should be banned, just like killing yourself is, the government has to have a say in certain parts of what you do. but ill still support paul :D

So in this case the government can regulate your diet and penalize you for not following the strict excersize routine they have mapped out for you? What about the supposed benefits of certain controlled substances or existing legal substances that alter consciousness? Also, should you have a right to dictate what the pros and cons are over a medical doctor, a friend, or a family member? And, how much have the costs been for criminalization? How much has the taxpayer spent over the last century on prohibition? What about incarceration? Is it legal, constitutional, or etehical to have secret police amongs the populace as well? And what of the cost to the families and friends of ours who have been destroyed not by "drugs" but by the system that outlawed them?

How is "the war on drugs" not a war on the American people?

Marceline88
08-19-2007, 06:01 PM
Hi my name is Jamie and I am now a statistic in the "War on Drugs". If your interested in my family's story please read it here. http://pray.groovy.org

Thank you.

Wendi
08-19-2007, 06:02 PM
can you say ron paul blotter (i am joking)? Hehe... you might be joking, but I have a baaaaad feeling it could happen in certain neighborhoods :eek:

devil21
08-19-2007, 06:39 PM
its a proven fact that using marijuana will increase you to try other drugs, so are ytou willing to legalize meth, coke, and other drugs? and yes i do believe the government should have control of your diet, IN SCHOOLS, my school only serves junk food fries and cheese corn dogs, without those wed be healthier, they cant control you at home, but when you go to a school ground at a young age youll learn how to eat healthier in thbe long run, our country is in a EPIDEMIC, 60% are overweight, will have to do something, before it turns to 75% of us...

Marijuana is NOT a gateway drug and has never been such. Its a plant that has been around for a very long time and grows wild all over the world. You have been fed the government lines. The only studies you see are sponsored by the same people who have outlawed them. Guess who that is? The FDA and the DEA both must sign off on marijuana studies for private organizations. Take a stab at how many they have approved? Its in the ballpark of ZERO! Can't have independent studies call them liars. And once again, you miss the entire point of how this ties into Dr. Paul's views. He is not necessarily saying "let all the meth junkies get high" but rather leave it up to the states and their citizens to decide what is legal or illegal. You will find that if left in the hands of the citizens, marijuana would quickly be legalized. Coke? Nope. Crack? Nope. Heroin? Nope. The hard drugs would stay illegal. Ending the War on Drugs means getting the feds out of the issue. And lets be realistic, most people realize weed isnt a deadly substance. The real issue is that if it is legalized big business is the loser since hemp farming becomes legal and pharma companies lose a lot of business when people start smoking weed and stop popping pills. And guess what industry has one of the largest group of lobbyists on Capitol Hill? Yep! Big Pharma! Dont you get it?!?

As for the food part, theres a lot of blame to go around. Kids are overweight but they learn it from their parents! How about we take better care of ourselves and serve as an example to our children? Its not the government's job to ensure you set a good example. It is YOUR job.

Nihilist23
08-19-2007, 06:55 PM
Please call it by it's actual name: Cannabis. The term Marijuana was associated with Cannabis during the Reefer Madness era in a propaganda effort to associate it with causing crime among Hispanics.

And yes, I do smoke, for pleasure, very often, and I'm high right now.

End the war on drugs and let the states make their own laws.


Drug arrests = felon. / felon's can't vote.

Not always. Use and possession of a certain amount of Cannabis is only a misdemeanor in most or all states.

hard@work
08-19-2007, 07:21 PM
its a proven fact that using marijuana will increase you to try other drugs...

Please source this from a not for profit independent research institution. The "Gateway Theory" has been disproven in many cases, and in addition it has been shown that use of cannibis reduces the desire to try other drugs including alcohol.

So your point here while well meant is fundamentally incorrect. In addition, this is not justification whatsoever of incarceration of American citizens.


so are ytou willing to legalize meth, coke, and other drugs?

I am a sponsor of decriminilization, there is a huge difference. Also in reference to "other drugs", the answer is yes. I am pro legalization of some and recriminilization of others. I am also for the outright banning of mass medication of the American citizens.


and yes i do believe the government should have control of your diet, IN SCHOOLS, my school only serves junk food fries and cheese corn dogs, without those wed be healthier, they cant control you at home, but when you go to a school ground at a young age youll learn how to eat healthier in thbe long run, our country is in a EPIDEMIC, 60% are overweight, will have to do something, before it turns to 75% of us...

While I agree that corporate food in our education system is wrong, I also believe that the government stepping into the caffeteria is a mistake in the first place. Aside from the sad truth that our country's most important decision makers - the parents - are mysteriously absent from this process I would say this is really just a minor issue compared to what I actually asked you.

Now I did not ask you about the school system, I asked you about you and your personal life directly. So let's say I chose to use a pure dose of MDMA in a regulated environment once every four to five months, purely for social use. With your logic even though you could be eating enough transfats and watching enough television to cause yourself a very low IQ'd heart attack at a young age I should be the one thrown in jail. The adverse effects of casual use of one substance like MDMA is much less detrimental than the prolonged effects of your own diet. The positive effects of "casual" MDMA use in controlled settings include a litany of psychological re-enforcements. The negative effects of an unhealthy diet results in premature loss of health and in many cases life. Prolonged couch surfing to FOX news network has shown to cause late life Trisomy 21 (it's true look it up). Ultimately by your logic we should be able to monitor your diet and excersize daily, let's say at your place of business, and if you do not meet the standards you will stand trial.

It is very easy to demonize substances or ignorantly paint substance use as substance abuse when you have no real knowledge of the toxicology comparisons between those same substances and what you intake naturally. Even so, citing detrimental effects does not in any way justify the gross neglegence of our society in ripping apart families and sending good honest men and women to prison with child rapists and violent murderers. If this is what you honestly support then please reconsider what it is you believe is true, and do some research into the statistical data collected by independant organizations outside of the governement run beurocracies.

Now before you get angry and think I am some hippy on drugs, I'm not. I am really just someone aware of what is happening with the "war on drugs" and the sponsorship of the American people of this "war" on itself. You really should consider reviewing your position on how to fight substance abuse, and the successes our society has and hasn't had over the last century with prohibition and addiction. There is plenty of information out there in regards to the success against substance abuse.

Very little of that success comes out of the prison system.


That said, you go ahead and drink your liver to death and smoke your lungs into tar. I think occasionally I may join you in a frothy mug of brew but really I prefer to stay healthy. It's my right to make that decision, not yours.

:)

@

dircha
08-19-2007, 07:31 PM
Unless someone asks about his view on the legalization of drugs, I won't bring it up.

Going to agree with several others who have already posted and say this sentiment is right on.

Don't bring the issue up with a potential supporter unless the supporter asks about it or you know it would play favorably with them.

Statistically, alcohol - a drug itself - is far, far more dangerous and destructive to our nation than any illegal drug. Should we ban alcoholic beverages? Been there, done that, it made the problem worse, and created and sustained entire criminal organizations. It should be no surprise that banning other drugs has had the exact same effect.

But again, use that argument wisely and don't bring it up if it isn't appropriate. Joe Sixpack isn't going to like you if you suggest that his PBR is more destructive to society than marijuana.

Revolution9
08-19-2007, 08:30 PM
Tell potential voters the cops don't like drug prohibition either. It hurts their respect and standing in the communities they enforce it in.

COPS SAY LEGALIZE DRUGS!

ASK US WHY

After nearly four decades of fueling the U.S. policy of a war on drugs with over a trillion tax dollars and 37 million arrests for nonviolent drug offenses, our confined population has quadrupled making building prisons the fastest growing industry in the United States. More than 2.2 million of our citizens are currently incarcerated and every year we arrest an additional 1.9 million more guaranteeing those prisons will be bursting at their seams.

Every year we choose to continue this war will cost U.S. taxpayers another 69 billion dollars. Despite all the lives we have destroyed and all the money so ill spent, today illicit drugs are cheaper, more potent, and far easier to get than they were 35 years ago at the beginning of the war on drugs. Meanwhile, people continue dying in our streets while drug barons and terrorists continue to grow richer than ever before. We would suggest that this scenario must be the very definition of a failed public policy. This madness must cease!

The stated goals of current U.S.drug policy -- reducing crime, drug addiction, and juvenile drug use -- have not been achieved, even after nearly four decades of a policy of "war on drugs". This policy, fueled by over a trillion of our tax dollars has had little or no effect on the levels of drug addiction among our fellow citizens, but has instead resulted in a tremendous increase in crime and in the numbers of Americans in our prisons and jails. With 4.6% of the world's population, America today has 22.5% of the worlds prisoners.

But, after all that time, after all the destroyed lives and after all the wasted resources, prohibited drugs today are cheaper, stronger, and easier to get than they were thirty-five years ago at the beginning of the so-called "war on drugs". With this in mind, we current and former members of law enforcement have created a drug-policy reform movement -- LEAP.

We believe that to save lives and lower the rates of disease, crime and addiction. as well as to conserve tax dollars, we must end drug prohibition. LEAP believes that a system of regulation and control of production and distribution will be far more effective and ethical than one of prohibition. We do this in hopes that we in Law Enforcement can regain the public's respect and trust, which have been greatly diminished by our involvement in imposing drug prohibition. Please consider joining us. You don't have to be a cop to join LEAP!

Find out more about us by reading some of the articles in our Publications section or by watching and listening to some of our multimedia clips,.

You can also read about the men and women who speak for LEAP, and see what we have on the calendar for the near future.

Check out the LEAP page: http://leap.cc/cms/index.php?name=Content&pid=2

Duckman
08-19-2007, 08:45 PM
its a proven fact that using marijuana will increase you to try other drugs, so are ytou willing to legalize meth, coke, and other drugs?

I feel like I'm piling on here, but I haven't heard the argument mentioned that the true gateway drug is alcohol, most people try alcohol before they try any other mind altering substance.

But to answer your question... Yes, I am in favor of legalizing all drugs. I believe you have a fundamental right to put whatever substance you want into your own body. It's a question of who owns your body... do you own it? If so, why is there a restriction on what you can do with it? I believe responsible use of all drugs is possible. Yes, some drugs are highly addictive, but so is nicotine, and nicotine use is unhealthy but was never made illegal. If someone uses, say, meth or heroin, and becomes addicted, that was their (probably bad) choice but with a legal market for the drug, chances are they could maintain that addiction without the significant amounts of money currently needed and therefore could probably maintain some sort of productive life in addition to their addiction.

Legalizing all drugs doesn't result in perfection, but I would argue it is infinitely better than the system we have.

devil21
08-19-2007, 09:06 PM
as many of you are older than me, maybe i was fed this propaganda, while you grew up in the marijuana years, regardless, i smoke Hookah, which is a water pipe, i say if you want to smoke marijuana go do hookah, doesnt get you high, and not illegal, and if i own my body, why cant i drink? should we cancel the dirnking age and if marijuana is instituted would you put a age limit on it?

Im 31 so I dont think I grew up in the "marijuana years", which I assume you mean the 60s and 70s. Cannabis should be regulated just like every other "legal" drug out there...with age limits, prescriptions, etc. It is a substance that can be abused and should be treated as such with necessary safeguards. You are welcome to your hooka but I smoke weed to get high so it defeats the purpose.

Duckman
08-20-2007, 12:45 AM
if i own my body, why cant i drink? should we cancel the dirnking age and if marijuana is instituted would you put a age limit on it?

You do own your own body, even before adulthood, but there is a conflicting legal premise that states that until you reach full adulthood (the age of majority) that others (parents, guardians, or the government) can legally make decisions for you "in your interest." In this case, the state decides it is in your interest to avoid tobacco and alcohol. I have no objection with adding cannabis or any other currently illegal drug to that list. The bottom line: until you reach age 18, you are NOT free.

I don't object to this general concept because I believe a line needs to be drawn somewhere: clearly a 2 year old cannot make his/her own rational decisions concerning freedom. But does the same conclusion arrive when considering a 16 year old? I am open to considering that the age of adulthood should perhaps come earlier than 18. I definitely believe the drinking age should be 18 and not 21 because age 21 comes after the legally-established age of majority (adulthood), therefore it makes no sense to me why a legal ADULT needs to wait 3 years to have a beer.

Nefertiti
08-20-2007, 04:06 AM
Stress how many people are in prison for drug consumption who have never committed any other crimes and how we as taxpayers are paying for their incarceration. How we are warehousing them rather than investing those taxpayer dollars in programs to rehabilitate them and get them off drugs when they do get out of prison, which would be much cheaper than locking them up. Investigate your state prison budget vis-a-vis your state education budget. In California at least, the former is larger than the latter, something that might get some people thinking about how the drug war is hurting all of us, not just the drug addicts.

I'm against the use of drugs and alcohol, but I am not for the criminalization of their consumption. We would be better off taxing them to the hilt or doing as Mexico wanted to do, go after the drug dealers rather than the consumers, and provide programs to help people get over their addictions. I also think it is a huge hypocrisy that cigarettes and alcohol are legal and the rest of the drugs aren't. Cigarettes are probably the most damaging to the body and alcohol affects people's behavior in ways that can be harmful to others more than any other drugs.

Nefertiti
08-20-2007, 04:13 AM
as many of you are older than me, maybe i was fed this propaganda, while you grew up in the marijuana years, regardless, i smoke Hookah, which is a water pipe, i say if you want to smoke marijuana go do hookah, doesnt get you high, and not illegal, and if i own my body, why cant i drink? should we cancel the dirnking age and if marijuana is instituted would you put a age limit on it?

Hamadeh-Do you realize how bad hookah is for you? It may be legal, but it is worse than cigarettes because while people feel they are smoking something lighter you actually are consuming more bad stuff, 1 hookah is like a pack of cigarettes. And if you share hookahs with others there is a risk of contracting TB or other diseases. I know here in the US it is still so uncommon you don't hear so much about the health risks but if you check out the Arab press you will find lots of information about this.

A recent study showed the danger of pot to the future mental health of people your age smoking it but overall it is safer than cigarettes and certainly safer than hookah. Yes, it may make people high but it generally does not make them dangerous like alcohol would.

Nefertiti
08-20-2007, 04:29 AM
Marijuana is NOT a gateway drug and has never been such. Its a plant that has been around for a very long time and grows wild all over the world. You have been fed the government lines. The only studies you see are sponsored by the same people who have outlawed them.

Back when I was in high school (this will date me a bit), I saw people progress from one drug to the next, with a strong correlation between their musical tastes. It went something like this:

Duran Duran (cigarettes) -> Depeche Mode (pot) -> to Cure (LSD)

Nefertiti
08-20-2007, 04:32 AM
I don't object to this general concept because I believe a line needs to be drawn somewhere: clearly a 2 year old cannot make his/her own rational decisions concerning freedom. But does the same conclusion arrive when considering a 16 year old?

When it comes to drugs and alcohol, I suspect the 2 year old would make a more rational decision than the 16 year old because his decision would be made purely on the taste and feeling he got from the drugs and not the social pressure. :D

Nefertiti
08-20-2007, 06:09 AM
http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul155.html

Read under "alcohol prohibition" and you will find some talking points that might appeal to those who do not use drugs.

Revolution9
08-20-2007, 06:11 AM
Hamadeh-Do you realize how bad hookah is for you? It may be legal, but it is worse than cigarettes because while people feel they are smoking something lighter you actually are consuming more bad stuff, 1 hookah is like a pack of cigarettes. And if you share hookahs with others there is a risk of contracting TB or other diseases. I know here in the US it is still so uncommon you don't hear so much about the health risks but if you check out the Arab press you will find lots of information about this.

A recent study showed the danger of pot to the future mental health of people your age smoking it but overall it is safer than cigarettes and certainly safer than hookah. Yes, it may make people high but it generally does not make them dangerous like alcohol would.

Ummm.. Tobacco smoke kills pneumococcus and tuberculosus bacteria. It is also the plant to cause the formation of red blood cells in the spleen. In the wars the old army doctors would tell you to smoke a cigarette to dry out your lungs if your had trenchlung or a wet cough from too much fog and moisture.

Best
Randy

G-khan
08-20-2007, 08:34 AM
Liberty to me is about being free to make choices about what I do with my life and to me is mine. If I choose to smoke drink and eat big macs I can do that. If I want to drink draino or anything else - I can do that and if I try to say to you that you can't do these things I stop your liberty..

Until 1914 there were no drug laws and then we got the Harrison act and it all started. Let me tell you our drug problems are much worse now than in 1914 when you could buy heroin at you local drug store.

When we got prohibition it did not save lives it made gangs and people like Al Capone came to power from it. His gang killed in the streets of Chicago and our drug gangs are killing people all over the country now. I was watching TV last night and they talked about the Mexican boarder and the drug trade. They said 2,000 mexicans have been gunned down in the last year over the trade routes into the USA

Prohibition of drugs does not save lives! Instead of putting people in prison let them do what they want and suffer their own consequences for what they do. Will it be sad if some kids get on drugs and hooked or die - yes it will. If you think making them illegal will stop it, it wont. You can get any drug you want by just going out and looking for it. You may need to buy it from someone that is a gang member and has a gun and may rob or shoot you but you can get it.

I wrote an article years ago about a drug called dilaudid and went in and asked a pharmacy what they paid for what is called #4 pills of it? Well he said about 40 cents each and the street price you pay for it through drug dealers was 60 to 75 dollars. Dilaudid is the drug of choice that comes from the pharmacy for heroin users as it is very close in affect to heroin...

God has created this great world and many plants that grow that will get you high. Who am I to say that you can't eat or have what God has placed here..

Liberty to me means I have a right to live my life as I see fit as long as I don't try to make you live yours as I see fit! What I do should be no concern of yours unless I step on your rights, and God given IMO freedoms!

crhoades
08-20-2007, 09:53 AM
Just out from Cato tying the SPP and drug war...

http://www.cato.org/view_ddispatch.php?viewdate=20070820#1

loupeznik
08-20-2007, 09:58 AM
Personally, I'm all for legalization. One point you might make to your friends would be to leave law enforcement in state hands thus lowering their federal taxes.

topaz420
01-25-2008, 04:57 PM
RPF members,

I am trying to recruit Medical Marijuana Patients to vote for Ron Paul!

Weedtracker.com is the biggest medical marijuana forum in the country, with thousands of voters visiting every day--

There is already a thread there called "who are the MMJ-friendly candidates?" -- I'm trying my best in that thread to battle against the misinformation being spread by Clinton and Obama supporters, as well as general Ron Paul Haters.

I'm trying my best, but I'm not nearly as skilled in debate as many of the great posters here -- I could use some backup!

http://www.weedtracker.com/forums/sh...dly-55003.html

Thanks to anyone that can help

SimpleName
01-25-2008, 05:01 PM
If the government can make decisions about what you can or can't consume, then why don't they put you on a diet; you're getting kind of chunky and it would be more healthy for you.


Love that line! I was cracking up the first time i watched a while back. Paul has got some balls.

coffeewithchess
01-25-2008, 05:03 PM
Many people I talk to about Ron are very receptive, until I get to his stance on the "War on Drugs". Several people have accused me of being a pot smoker myself (I'm not), and others are repulsed at the idea of drugs being legal. I find myself unable to omit this part since it's an important issue that I'm passionate about. How should I effectively sell this delicate subject?

Don't bring it up...if they don't ask, don't tell. You have to know who you are talking to by asking questions.

RevolutionSD
01-25-2008, 05:05 PM
Many people I talk to about Ron are very receptive, until I get to his stance on the "War on Drugs". Several people have accused me of being a pot smoker myself (I'm not), and others are repulsed at the idea of drugs being legal. I find myself unable to omit this part since it's an important issue that I'm passionate about. How should I effectively sell this delicate subject?

Wow, where do you live?
It's pretty much the opposite here in CA.
75% of people are for legalizing it, especially when it comes to medicinal pot.
Most people I talk to are anti-war on drugs.

-lotus-
01-25-2008, 05:07 PM
I always get a good response when I bring it up, because i know WHEN to and when NOT to. if im canvassing a 70 year old grandmother, obviously not gonna bring it up. if im canvassing the guy thats wearing a bob marley shirt and wearing hemp jewelry, prolly gonna mention it. its just a matter of knowing what to say to who.

dirknb@hotmail.com
01-25-2008, 05:08 PM
If they don't like the idea, emphasize that it's an issue for the states to decide, not the federal government. The federal government's involvement is un-Constitutional. Otherwise, don't bring it up.

Gadsdenfly
01-25-2008, 05:09 PM
Regardless of how one feels about marijuana or other drugs the facts show that the War on Drugs is a colossal failure and a gigantic waste of money. I personally think drugs should be treated like alcohol but that being said I don't bring this issue up with your regular joe six pack Republican.

ronpaulitician
01-25-2008, 05:09 PM
More US teens use marijuana than Dutch teens.

Inmates have access to drugs.

constituent
01-25-2008, 05:12 PM
LOL. Well, you might be better at getting this across than I am. I'm having a hard enough time getting them over their brainwashed belief that 1. Iraq had nothing to do with 9-11 and 2. Us leaving isn't going to increase the likelihood that we will be attacked here. 3. Dr. Paul isn't some kind of wuss; rather he actually wants to go after the people who attacked us. So, once I get past this, if I threw the whole drug legalization thing in, I think I would lose them totally. To me, it's not worth it at this point. But, like I said, maybe you're better at presenting the case than I am.

you're just runnin' w/ the wrong crowd...

trouble-makers and what not.

constituent
01-25-2008, 05:15 PM
to Cure (LSD)

.......

truer words never spoken.

DahuiHeeNalu
01-25-2008, 05:17 PM
I smoke the Ganja i have worked full time since i was 14 years old.. Alcohol kills people! Prescribed and over the counter drugs kill people and Marijuana kills NO ONE! Eckerd and Wallgreens should be raided those are drugs!

skeryl
01-25-2008, 05:19 PM
http://www.drugwardistortions.org/

a nice website i resort to for facts about the war on drugs..

DahuiHeeNalu
01-25-2008, 05:20 PM
I always get a good response when I bring it up, because i know WHEN to and when NOT to. if im canvassing a 70 year old grandmother, obviously not gonna bring it up. if im canvassing the guy thats wearing a bob marley shirt and wearing hemp jewelry, prolly gonna mention it. its just a matter of knowing what to say to who.

We got 2 dreadheads in our group and we got dems normal republicans,people who have never voted people interested from every races and creed!

CareerTech1
01-25-2008, 05:20 PM
hemp / pot was made illegal because it was cheaper to make clothing with it than nylon. And hemp is the strongest natural fiber. See DuPont quote above

literatim
01-25-2008, 05:23 PM
You can't tell someone what you are passionate about, you have to inform them about what they are passionate about.

kaligula
01-25-2008, 05:30 PM
Just Google Bob Barr and how he has done a complete 180 on the Drug War.

The War on Drugs, the "gateway" power to the Leviathan State..

UKLooney
01-25-2008, 05:35 PM
I'm gonna plug this video again hoping for a couple extra diggs, most peeps missed it last time. This message is important to lots of us ill folk.

RP's message at the end. Great video to boot!

http://digg.com/health/Medical_Cannabis_Time_Lapse_Video

Cheers guys :)

ryanmkeisling
01-25-2008, 05:35 PM
Dr. Paul doesn't want to divert FEDERAL resources (DEA, etc.) from FEDERAL responsibilities such as national security and the nexus of drugs and terrorism to arrest chemo patients, et al.

Not only that but per his talk at google, all drugs should be allowed to be sold in all pharmacies without federal limitations. This means that if the state and the pharmacies policies were in line, all drugs could be bought over the counter: heroin, cocaine, lsd, extacy, pcp, morning after pill, marijuana, etc. Can you imagine this? There was a time, in the early sixties that one could walk into a pharmacy and buy LSD over the counter, my grandfather still has some, although he would never let me have it! This is how it should be as the War on Drugs is more about hysteria and keeping black markets afloat. The US economy needs black markets and so does the CIA. We all know that the CIA has used drugs to fund terrorism for decades the world over, this is no longer a secret or a "conspiracy theory", but no one wants to believe it, or face the TRUTH.:eek:

zzxf
01-25-2008, 05:35 PM
I HATE the war on drugs -- every part of it makes me seething angry -- so Ron Paul's stance on this is probably my 3rd or 4th top reason for supporting him. But I've come to the conclusion that unless I know my audience feels the same way, I can't mention it among the reasons I give for voting for him. I think I may have unfortunately turned people off to Ron Paul by mentioning this issue, so it's just not worth it. There are plenty of other good issues that can be emphasized.

Lance C Roseman
01-25-2008, 05:39 PM
RPF members,

I am trying to recruit Medical Marijuana Patients to vote for Ron Paul!

Weedtracker.com is the biggest medical marijuana forum in the country, with thousands of voters visiting every day--

There is already a thread there called "who are the MMJ-friendly candidates?" -- I'm trying my best in that thread to battle against the misinformation being spread by Clinton and Obama supporters, as well as general Ron Paul Haters.

I'm trying my best, but I'm not nearly as skilled in debate as many of the great posters here -- I could use some backup!

http://www.weedtracker.com/forums/sh...dly-55003.html

Thanks to anyone that can help


My website cannabis-world.org has only one banner...a Ron Paul banner! The group of us whom run and moderate the site were the first medical cannabis growers to be licensed by the Canadian fedgov. Word is out on all the larger cannabis forums.

UnitedWeStand
01-25-2008, 05:48 PM
Remind people who are concerned about the legalization of drugs that our system of checks and balances prevents any President from implementing any law without elected congressional approval.

Marijuana isnt the biggest issue for most older voters, but I think a lot of people read about this and immiediately imagine a bunch of crackheads released from prison and robbing their houses.

UKLooney
01-25-2008, 05:48 PM
http://digg.com/health/Medical_Cannabis_Time_Lapse_Video


My website cannabis-world.org has only one banner...a Ron Paul banner! The group of us whom run and moderate the site were the first medical cannabis growers to be licensed by the Canadian fedgov. Word is out on all the larger cannabis forums.
Can you post the link to the above digg on you site. It would help lots. Cheers...

phree
01-25-2008, 06:20 PM
I believe drugs should be banned, just like killing yourself is, the government has to have a say in certain parts of what you do. but ill still support paul :D

Hamedeh, I don't know if anyone addressed your post yet, but here's my take.

Drugs are generally bad for people, but prohibition is an ineffective way to deal with it. The government's attempt to ban alcohol is a classic example.

Drugs being illegal doesn't stop people from using them, it only makes the quality of the drugs lower and more dangerous, creates the black market for drugs which encourages violent crime, and finally, the war on drugs imprisons people who haven't necessarily hurt anyone but themselves. Add to that the fact that some people are capable of using drugs without ruining their lives.

That's my quick thoughts about the subject. If you're interested here's a link to an speech given by Gary Johnson when he was the governor of New Mexico. He is an outspoken advocate of legalizing drugs and he had endorsed RP.

http://www.angelfire.com/on/GEAR2000/drugreform.html

MayTheRonBeWithYou
01-25-2008, 06:32 PM
Ask them if they want to outlaw beer. Alcohol is far more dangerous than weed, so ask them to explain why alcohol should be legal, and marijuana illegal.

Greenskin
01-25-2008, 07:00 PM
Hamedeh, I don't know if anyone addressed your post yet, but here's my take.

Drugs are generally bad for people, but prohibition is an ineffective way to deal with it. The government's attempt to ban alcohol is a classic example.

Drugs being illegal doesn't stop people from using them, it only makes the quality of the drugs lower and more dangerous, creates the black market for drugs which encourages violent crime, and finally, the war on drugs imprisons people who haven't necessarily hurt anyone but themselves. Add to that the fact that some people are capable of using drugs without ruining their lives.

That's my quick thoughts about the subject. If you're interested here's a link to an speech given by Gary Johnson when he was the governor of New Mexico. He is an outspoken advocate of legalizing drugs and he had endorsed RP.

http://www.angelfire.com/on/GEAR2000/drugreform.html

Sorry to be nit picky, but drugs are usually not bad for you, when taken responsibly of course.

Rob
01-25-2008, 07:12 PM
How many kids in your school are forced to tale ritalin? Are you aware of the numbers taking aderol?

If someone has nervous tension from modern societal conditions, bad workplace, bills always coming in and they smoke a bowl and sit down and read and surf the net and do artwork, get an appetite that wasn't there and go to sleep waking up refreshed fr another day..something alcohol is notoriously bad for.. is this medicinal or recreational? If medicinal should they have to pay a doctors fee so he can simply sign a document stating you are allowed to smoke? Would people be allowed to grow their own if the medical and distributing cartels were in control of the network for distribution? Should a plant that has intimate body connections to the nervous system of ALL animals higher than the fruit fly on the tree of life and intimately tied to man's agricultural and cultural development be outlawed when it is a part of nature? Can you be criminally liable for externaly possessing a substance the body makes internally?

Got some thinking to do there sonny.

Best Regards
Randy

Are you stoned right now?

Ninja Homer
01-25-2008, 07:20 PM
RPF members,

I am trying to recruit Medical Marijuana Patients to vote for Ron Paul!

Weedtracker.com is the biggest medical marijuana forum in the country, with thousands of voters visiting every day--

There is already a thread there called "who are the MMJ-friendly candidates?" -- I'm trying my best in that thread to battle against the misinformation being spread by Clinton and Obama supporters, as well as general Ron Paul Haters.

I'm trying my best, but I'm not nearly as skilled in debate as many of the great posters here -- I could use some backup!

http://www.weedtracker.com/forums/sh...dly-55003.html

Thanks to anyone that can help

I guess people didn't realize you dug up a really old post here. Anyway, that link doesn't work. I'm guessing you copied and pasted it from another post rather than pasting the original link.

ValidusCustodiae
01-25-2008, 07:31 PM
I believe drugs should be banned, just like killing yourself is, the government has to have a say in certain parts of what you do. but ill still support paul :D

Whoa, awful. The government can't restrict you from ending *your* life, or destroying *your* body, unless it owns them. I don't know about you, but my life and my body do NOT belong to the government and thus are not subject to their discretion. End of story.

sharpsteve2003
01-25-2008, 07:34 PM
Many people I talk to about Ron are very receptive, until I get to his stance on the "War on Drugs". Several people have accused me of being a pot smoker myself (I'm not), and others are repulsed at the idea of drugs being legal. I find myself unable to omit this part since it's an important issue that I'm passionate about. How should I effectively sell this delicate subject?

http://www.ronpaul2008.com/articles/?tag=War%20On%20Drugs

tomveil
01-25-2008, 07:39 PM
I just bring up the case of this Florida man:

http://www.painreliefnetwork.org/in-the-spotlight/about-richard-paey/

Cliff's notes: Guy in a terrible accident has a perscription for Vicatin. A LOT of Vicatin. The police thought that there was NO WAY this guy needed so much. So they busted in and arrested him. Mandatory Minimum sentencing required that he get TWENTY-FIVE YEARS, even though they admitted that they had NO evidence that he was selling.

The irony? When he got to prison, they did a medical evaluation AND UPPED HIS DOSAGE!!

Good to see that he FINALLY got pardoned, but how much money was wasted on this BS?

nuklbone
01-25-2008, 07:47 PM
I'm for legalizing pot but not heroin. No one is going to break into my house and steal my TV so that they can get money for their next "pot fix". They might do it for heroin, though, so I don't want that shit too easy to come by on the street. Heroin ruins people's lives. Everyone knows that. When their lives fall apart, it eventually starts to affect mine and everyone else's. That is one area where I break with RP's stance.

phree
01-25-2008, 07:47 PM
Sorry to be nit picky, but drugs are usually not bad for you, when taken responsibly of course.

It's a little misleading to say that drugs are usually not bad for you. There are several variables involved, but it's reasonable to say that there is usually a risk at some level of use, and there is often the risk of addiction.

Obviously there is less risk when used in moderation but most drugs including pharmaceuticals have adverse effects. Also a person's tendency to addiction isn't known until they use drugs, so there is an element of risk in even trying them.

I would be a hypocrite to say that no one should ever use recreational drugs, but it's not reasonable to contend that regular use doesn't involve some cost in terms of health.

BenjFranklin
01-25-2008, 07:53 PM
I believe drugs should be banned, just like killing yourself is, the government has to have a say in certain parts of what you do. but ill still support paul :D

As the good doctor has said, to advocate freedom doesn't mean to advocate what people do with that freedom.

tomveil
01-25-2008, 08:03 PM
I'm for legalizing pot but not heroin. No one is going to break into my house and steal my TV so that they can get money for their next "pot fix". They might do it for heroin, though, so I don't want that shit too easy to come by on the street. Heroin ruins people's lives. Everyone knows that. When their lives fall apart, it eventually starts to affect mine and everyone else's. That is one area where I break with RP's stance.

You don't, really disagree with his stance though. Your state would be in charge of deciding what is legal and what isn't. That's a role for state government to play, not federal. Us pot-smoking-hippie-hackey-sackers up here in Washington don't want Florida to tell us what we can and can't do.......

The reality is, in a majority of states nothing would change. In a handful of states, pot would become legal. (And I imagine that when the bottom doesn't drop out of society, more would follow suit)

The federal war on drugs is a waste of time and money, while further expanding government control. States should be able to decide this for themselves, so you don't get federal agents busting into the homes of bed-ridden cancer patients to throw them in prison.

kisstheclowns
01-25-2008, 08:12 PM
Tell them that since the 70's the rate of drug use has more than doubled. 20% of our jails are filled with none-violent, victimless drug criminals. This is why we have more people in jail then all of the world's jails combined. What the "war" on drugs has done is divided low-income homes by putting fathers and mothers in prison. All that Paul want's to do is put the power in the state's hands. This way, if a grandma in CA has a prescription for Pot to stop her nausea from chemo, the Feds can't come in and raid here home......like they have already done in the past.

Let people live their own lives. If you are an adult, you have the right to decide what you want to do with your time and money. We know the war on drugs doesn't work. It is a waist of money, and resources that has done nothing but make the problem worse. Drugs should not be illegal, not if you don't hurt anyone.

topaz420
01-25-2008, 08:15 PM
I guess people didn't realize you dug up a really old post here. Anyway, that link doesn't work. I'm guessing you copied and pasted it from another post rather than pasting the original link.

I apologize for not testing out the link:

Fixed Link (http://www.weedtracker.com/forums/showthread.php/so-m-mj-friendly-55003p1.html)

I could use some backup in fighting the spread of misinformation!

Thanks

kisstheclowns
01-25-2008, 08:17 PM
what about the 20% of the population that are addicted to "legal" drugs. Just because something is bad for you in massive quantities, doesn't give the government the right to make it illegal. Otherwise, they would have kept prohibition in play.

ValidusCustodiae
01-25-2008, 08:24 PM
I'm for legalizing pot but not heroin. No one is going to break into my house and steal my TV so that they can get money for their next "pot fix". They might do it for heroin, though, so I don't want that shit too easy to come by on the street. Heroin ruins people's lives. Everyone knows that. When their lives fall apart, it eventually starts to affect mine and everyone else's. That is one area where I break with RP's stance.

Nobody would have to break into a house to steal it because it would be so incredibly cheap. The only reason there is any cost associated with illegal drugs is because of their illegality. Besides, the question here is about property rights. If you have the right to your property, and they should be held responsible for stealing it, then they should have the right to do whatever they want with their property. (Their body). In other words, heroin isn't robbing you. Pencils don't make spelling mistakes. Guns don't kill people.

nuklbone
01-25-2008, 08:34 PM
Nobody would have to break into a house to steal it because it would be so incredibly cheap. The only reason there is any cost associated with illegal drugs is because of their illegality. Besides, the question here is about property rights. If you have the right to your property, and they should be held responsible for stealing it, then they should have the right to do whatever they want with their property. (Their body). In other words, heroin isn't robbing you. Pencils don't make spelling mistakes. Guns don't kill people.

You know, on paper that sounds great. But in reality, I just don't think it works out that way. Do you really think that if a super-addictive drug like heroin was cheap and easy to come by, that it would not create problem to society? If everyone lived in their own separate bubble, yeah, they can screw themselves up and it's their own problem. But that is not the real world. Everyone's lives affects those around them.

Marijuana is NOT the same as heroin. Marijuana is benign. Heroin is a serious problem.

Roadrcr
01-25-2008, 08:34 PM
Its not that hes FOR drugs .. its that hes for the states consitiutional right to decide for themselfs.. The constitution states that the fed has no rights in the matter.

humanic
01-25-2008, 08:35 PM
http://youtube.com/watch?v=88REf0tjZHo

Audience Member: Your solution on stopping drug trade is "give up." Give up the War on Drugs. I say zero tolerance. We use the military for aid, we stop it from getting into the country-- we cut it off at the source. Why, why give up [in the middle of the fight]?

Ron Paul: What we give up on is a tyrannical approach to a social/medical problem, and we endorse an idea of volunteerism and self-responsibility-- family, friends, and churches-- to solve the problem, rather than saying some monolithic government is gonna make you take care of yourself and be a better person. It's a preposterous notion, it never worked, and it never will! The government can't make you a better person. It can't make you follow good habits. Why don't they put you on a diet, you're a little overweight!

1988

davidt!
01-25-2008, 08:37 PM
Personally, I don't agree with Pual on this issue but it isn't that big a deal to me. There are far bigger reasons why I support him

homah
01-25-2008, 08:40 PM
Method 1 -- Find something they enjoy that is not considered mainstream (eating fatty foods will be a big one for many people). Ask if they are alright with the government banning such an activity. Assuming they say no, ask how it is different than banning people from doing drugs in the privacy of their own home.

Method 2 -- Tell them we should be free to do as we please in the comfort of our own home so long as no one else is effected by our actions. That is what freedom is all about. The government doesn't exist to protect us from ourselves. It exists to protect us from our enemies, both foreign and domestic. If they disagree with this argument, ask why and take it from there.

Patriot0811
01-25-2008, 08:43 PM
I am not for legalization of all drugs but i believe Marijuana should be legalized:

A first time marijuana offender will receive more time than a person charged with aggravated assault or even molestation. The charge is not proportional to the offense. The millions of Americans arrested for using marijuana annually are also usually hard working people who pay taxes. This drug war is costing our government billions of dollars and yet today, more and more people are beginning to use Marijuana.

how is it that kids today can obtain marijuana easier than they can cigarettes or alcohol? I should know, im a high school student. When the stores sell them, there's no incentive for the dealers to deal them. You're not going to see a drug dealer selling alchol or cigarettes. It's simple: stores check ID, dealers do not.

Millions of US dollars are streaming into Mexico because of smugglers who are benefitting from our "drug war". Is this really helping us? This drug war has extended to us providing millions of dollars in aid to the Mexican government so they can battle their drug problem, why not provide anti-drug aid to every country in the world? The legalization of marijuana will also allow the taxation of marijuana which would bring in a small amount of income for the government.

Medical Marijuana patients in California(where medicinal marijuana is legal) have had their houses raided and their children taken away by the Drug Enforcement Agency. These are good people, they are not crazed drug addicts. How can we sit here and allow this federal agency to arrest people for lawfully using marijuana? Isn't this part of Ron Paul's message, that the states shall not have their sovereignty infringed?

Also, prisons that are becoming too overcrowded are releasing killers, rapists and other violent offenders to make room for NON-VIOLENT drug users. IS this not ridiculous?

Cigarettes are man made and contain hundred of poisons and chemicals added by the cigarette companies to get you addicted. Marijuana is a natural god made plant. Seriously, which sounds worse.

Tests show Marijuana Does NOT impair driving like alcohol does:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t3zou4F00Ic

Jagwarr
01-25-2008, 08:47 PM
I read an article about six months ago discussing a couple of studies going on that are looking into how MJ slows time perception in many smokers. What is interesting is that they say people who experience this slow time perception not only think they are able to accomplish more within a given time period but they do. Their minds perceive time to be slower but their physical bodies do not so they can physically do more within any given time frame while high.

Sounds wierd but that's what they are investigating.

Mauiboy86
01-25-2008, 08:47 PM
http://rebates4ron.com/images/rudy.jpg

tomveil
01-25-2008, 09:08 PM
I read an article about six months ago discussing a couple of studies going on that are looking into how MJ slows time perception in many smokers. What is interesting is that they say people who experience this slow time perception not only think they are able to accomplish more within a given time period but they do. Their minds perceive time to be slower but their physical bodies do not so they can physically do more within any given time frame while high.

Sounds wierd but that's what they are investigating.

*nods*

There's times where I'll swear that I've spent hours finishing a project only to find that only an hour has passed. As long as you have the MOTIVATION (a big problem with pot), you'll be more focused and get things done. (Also, have much more fun doing it, since it feels like an adventure) ;)

nikolai
01-25-2008, 09:29 PM
I think RP fundamentally believes the federal government doesn't have the right to tell you what to do with your body. Now whether he honestly wants to legalize all drugs completely or just let the states handle the issue, I'm not clear about. That's what I'd really like to know.

And I think that it's funny that when people express that its a bad idea to legalize drugs, people start throwing out arguments about how good (or not bad...however you wanna word it) marijuana is for you and how alcohol and caffeine are legal. The thing is that marijuana, alcohol, nicotine, caffeine, etc aren't the same thing as crack and heroine. I want someone to give me an argument that says people will just use heroine recreationally and they'll never infringe on the rights of others. You can't honestly believe that.

I, for one, think that big tobacco would LOVE to legalize marijuana. They'd be the first to sell it. And I'm sure they'd add all the same addictive substances to MJ cigarettes to get you addicted to them. Then everyone will be lighting up marijuana cigarettes on their way home instead of tobacco cigarettes.

phree
01-25-2008, 09:30 PM
You know, on paper that sounds great. But in reality, I just don't think it works out that way. Do you really think that if a super-addictive drug like heroin was cheap and easy to come by, that it would not create problem to society?

Drugs being illegal makes them a problem for society because I'm more likely to be robbed by an addict, and much more likely to be robbed by the federal government to pay for wasteful programs that treat people with health problems as if they are criminals. If drugs were made legal people would be more likely to seek treatment if they needed it without fear of going to jail.

I wonder if alcohol became more of a problem after the prohibition was lifted. It certainly is a big problem now. I think it's possible that so many people abuse alcohol because it's legal. Maybe if other drugs were legal some of the people who are addicted to alcohol would choose other drugs leaving the total number of addicts (drugs and alcohol) roughly the same.

Just some random thoughts....

Patriot0811
01-25-2008, 09:32 PM
I think RP fundamentally believes the federal government doesn't have the right to tell you what to do with your body. Now whether he honestly wants to legalize all drugs completely or just let the states handle the issue, I'm not clear about. That's what I'd really like to know.

And I think that it's funny that when people express that its a bad idea to legalize drugs, people start throwing out arguments about how good (or not bad...however you wanna word it) marijuana is for you and how alcohol and caffeine are legal. The thing is that marijuana, alcohol, nicotine, caffeine, etc aren't the same thing as crack and heroine. I want someone to give me an argument that says people will just use heroine recreationally and they'll never infringe on the rights of others. You can't honestly believe that.

I, for one, think that big tobacco would LOVE to legalize marijuana. They'd be the first to sell it. And I'm sure they'd add all the same addictive substances to MJ cigarettes to get you addicted to them. Then everyone will be lighting up marijuana cigarettes on their way home instead of tobacco cigarettes.


you're right the big tobacco companies would love to put addicting substances in marijuana, but that's why people will grow their own.

phree
01-25-2008, 09:32 PM
I want someone to give me an argument that says people will just use heroine recreationally and they'll never infringe on the rights of others. You can't honestly believe that.

How would they infringe on others rights? I'm not sure I follow.

KMA-NWO
01-25-2008, 09:33 PM
THC is fat soluble. You could theoretically create a lethal does by taking giant hail bays of the drug and cooking it in butter, then eating a massive quantity of the tainted butter.

That's not entirely accurate.

It requires ingesting more than the amount you get from smoking 100 pounds/hr.

Let's just say you'll pass out first

nikolai
01-25-2008, 09:34 PM
you're right the big tobacco companies would love to put addicting substances in marijuana, but that's why people will grow their own.

Just like people grow their own tobacco? Heck I dont know anyone that rolls their own. People only grow their own marijuana cause they can't buy it prepackaged in a store.

phree
01-25-2008, 09:35 PM
That's not entirely accurate.

It requires ingesting more than the amount you get from smoking 100 pounds/hr.

Let's just say you'll pass out first

Yes, but what if a bale of marijuana fell on you?

Gustogus
01-25-2008, 09:35 PM
The best way is to push it back to a State/Community issue.

Remind them of how siimilar the war on drugs is to the prohibition of the past, black markets and funding of the mafia (terrorists).

Talk about how if you feel they should be illegal, it can still happen on the community level, just like "Dry Counties" and alcohol.

Play up the State/Community enforcement and just the removal from federal jurisdiction.

nikolai
01-25-2008, 09:41 PM
How would they infringe on others rights? I'm not sure I follow.

People that are addicted to drugs like this only "steal tvs" (as it was worded earlier in this thread) once they have expended or been denied the resources and support of those closest to them.

The thing that scares me the most is that experimentation with drugs like this that are immediately addictive will be much more likely if they are legal. It's as if the government is saying they are ok. A parent can experiment with marijuana or have a drink or two every once in a while, but experimenting with powerful drugs like this will have undeniable consequences for the future of their children. And it will be a pattern that propagates down through the generations.

trout007
01-25-2008, 09:46 PM
I use 3 arguments.

#1 - Ask if they ever heard of Al Capone the gangster. I'm sure they will. Ask why was he so famous? The answer is becuase of the ruthlessness of the gang fighting over turf to sell booze. Next ask how much fighting do you have between two local liquor stores over turf? Tell them that is why there is so much violence in this country. Making drugs illegal only divertys a huge amount of money into these gangs. Get rid of the drug laws and the gangs go broke.

#2 Terrorism- Tell them that Al Quida gets a good amount of funding from growing Herion. If they want to help bankrupt Al Quida you could make Heroin legal. The price would drop and cut off their funds.

#3 Prisons - Tell them prisons are so full of non-violent drug users put there by mandatory drugs sentances that there is no room for the violent people we really need off the street.

steph3n
01-25-2008, 09:50 PM
Many people I talk to about Ron are very receptive, until I get to his stance on the "War on Drugs". Several people have accused me of being a pot smoker myself (I'm not), and others are repulsed at the idea of drugs being legal. I find myself unable to omit this part since it's an important issue that I'm passionate about. How should I effectively sell this delicate subject?

It is a states rights issue just like Alcohol, even cities in Texas can chose to sell or not.

trout007
01-25-2008, 09:50 PM
nikolai,

I know in my high school it was easier to get weed then alcohol. If you make any of those hard drugs legal most likely they would be sold similar to alcohol at a special store where you need to show ID. You can have strong laws against selling to minors. Since they will be real buisnesses they would have a lot to lose by violating those laws.

alienpyro
01-25-2008, 09:53 PM
bump

phree
01-25-2008, 10:02 PM
People that are addicted to drugs like this only "steal tvs" (as it was worded earlier in this thread) once they have expended or been denied the resources and support of those closest to them.

The thing that scares me the most is that experimentation with drugs like this that are immediately addictive will be much more likely if they are legal. It's as if the government is saying they are ok. A parent can experiment with marijuana or have a drink or two every once in a while, but experimenting with powerful drugs like this will have undeniable consequences for the future of their children. And it will be a pattern that propagates down through the generations.

I think that maybe there is one addiction that you are discounting, the addiction to normalcy. The vast majority of people would never give up their stable jobs or their families to wander the streets as drug addicts. It's very true that pot is not heroine, and that is another reason that heroine and other powerful drugs might not be a huge problem. Most people can drink or smoke a little and still function fairly easily. With more powerful drugs a person has to at some point make a choice to leave their normal life behind in favor of the drug, and again, most people won't give up their money, family, social standing, etc. for a life of getting high.


Something else to consider is that just the fact that something is illegal can create a lot of curiosity in people. It may be the case that the best way to influence young people to do hard drugs is to insist they do them, hypothetically of course.

Greenskin
01-25-2008, 10:27 PM
People on Heroin typically don't steal TVs. I'm willing to bet more sober people commit crimes than people on drugs.

If i smoke crack in my room, i don't see how I'm infringing on your rights.

KMA-NWO
01-25-2008, 10:33 PM
People that are addicted to drugs like this only "steal tvs" (as it was worded earlier in this thread) once they have expended or been denied the resources and support of those closest to them.

The thing that scares me the most is that experimentation with drugs like this that are immediately addictive will be much more likely if they are legal. It's as if the government is saying they are ok. A parent can experiment with marijuana or have a drink or two every once in a while, but experimenting with powerful drugs like this will have undeniable consequences for the future of their children. And it will be a pattern that propagates down through the generations.

You drink Coke (NOT DIET) or any other sodas (NOT DIET)? Do you enjoy candy and sweets?

Did you know that sucrose/glucose/fructose is far more addicting than cocaine?

Link: http://www.slashfood.com/2007/08/27/sugar-found-to-be-more-addictive-than-cocaine/

Source:
http://www.plosone.org/article/fetchArticle.action?articleURI=info%3Adoi%2F10.137 1%2Fjournal.pone.0000698

Maybe we should outlaw sugar. It is very addicting and is a major cause of a national health epidemic.

TRADE SUGAR FOR COCAINE(/sarcasm, but norly, i want BOTH legal)!

Revolution9
01-25-2008, 10:37 PM
Yes, but what if a bale of marijuana fell on you?

Cool.. Where do I sign up? The runway at Menas Arkansas or has it moved?

best
Randy

Revolution9
01-25-2008, 10:40 PM
People on Heroin typically don't steal TVs. I'm willing to bet more sober people commit crimes than people on drugs.

If i smoke crack in my room, i don't see how I'm infringing on your rights.

Correct on the heroin. As soon as they start hatching a plan they go into nodland and dream.

On the crack..if you stay in your room chances are you won't infringe on anybody's rights.. Coming out of your room the chances are pretty large, even just merely as a roving bundle of psychotic impulses.

HTH
Randy

nikolai
01-25-2008, 10:43 PM
You drink Coke (NOT DIET) or any other sodas (NOT DIET)? Do you enjoy candy and sweets?

Did you know that sucrose/glucose/fructose is far more addicting than cocaine?

Link: http://www.slashfood.com/2007/08/27/sugar-found-to-be-more-addictive-than-cocaine/

Source:
http://www.plosone.org/article/fetchArticle.action?articleURI=info%3Adoi%2F10.137 1%2Fjournal.pone.0000698

Maybe we should outlaw sugar. It is very addicting and is a major cause of a national health epidemic.

TRADE SUGAR FOR COCAINE(/sarcasm, but norly, i want BOTH legal)!

Umm doesnt your body actually need sucrose to produce energy and thus live?
Are you seriously comparing sugar to crack? I don't of anyone who's life was destroyed because they experimented with Sweet Tarts.

Yes I know high frustose corn syrup in soda is bad for you. In fact worse than pure cane sugar, which actually tastes better.

Revolution9
01-25-2008, 10:43 PM
Just like people grow their own tobacco? Heck I dont know anyone that rolls their own. People only grow their own marijuana cause they can't buy it prepackaged in a store.

About 1/4th of the people around here roll American Spirit additive free tobacco. I won't smoke any tailor mades. i can taste the formaldehyde. I would not smoke prepacked joints either. The potency would be off as it is a volatile essence and merely crushing it for processing at the factory would start to kill its subtleties.

Best
randy

Greenskin
01-25-2008, 10:46 PM
? I don't of anyone who's life was destroyed because they experimented with Sweet Tarts.



Ever heard of dieabetis(sp?)?

KMA-NWO
01-25-2008, 10:49 PM
Umm doesnt your body actually need sucrose to produce energy and thus live?
Are you seriously comparing sugar to crack? I don't of anyone who's life was destroyed because they experimented with Sweet Tarts.

Yes I know high frustose corn syrup in soda is bad for you. In fact worse than pure cane sugar, which actually tastes better.

Your body can technically survive on fatty and protein foods (look up Ketosis)

nikolai
01-25-2008, 10:50 PM
People on Heroin typically don't steal TVs. I'm willing to bet more sober people commit crimes than people on drugs.

If i smoke crack in my room, i don't see how I'm infringing on your rights.

Of course you don't because you are smoking crack in your room. And you can't hold down a job to pay taxes and contribute to society.

I'm willing to bet that the type of people that steal TV's do it because they didn't have an upbringing that taught them social values or that put a strong focus on a good education. I wonder why their parents didn't teach them these things?

And for the people that are addicted to serious drugs, what company is going to employ them? If they can't hold down a job, where do they get the money to pay for their addiction? Legal or not?

nikolai
01-25-2008, 10:53 PM
About 1/4th of the people around here roll American Spirit additive free tobacco. I won't smoke any tailor mades. i can taste the formaldehyde. I would not smoke prepacked joints either. The potency would be off as it is a volatile essence and merely crushing it for processing at the factory would start to kill its subtleties.

Best
randy

I am sure that you are the exception to the rule. I don't think anything but a small fraction of Americans follow your example.

phree
01-25-2008, 10:54 PM
Correct on the heroin. As soon as they start hatching a plan they go into nodland and dream.

On the crack..if you stay in your room chances are you won't infringe on anybody's rights.. Coming out of your room the chances are pretty large, even just merely as a roving bundle of psychotic impulses.

HTH
Randy

When I smoke crack I'm afraid to leave the house.

KMA-NWO
01-25-2008, 10:56 PM
Of course you don't because you are smoking crack in your room. And you can't hold down a job to pay taxes and contribute to society.

I'm willing to bet that the type of people that steal TV's do it because they didn't have an upbringing that taught them social values or that put a strong focus on a good education. I wonder why their parents didn't teach them these things?

And for the people that are addicted to serious drugs, what company is going to employ them? If they can't hold down a job, where do they get the money to pay for their addiction? Legal or not?

One. That assumes that doing crack once in a while prevents you from 'holding down a job', 'paying taxes', and 'contributing to society'. They are NOT mutually exclusive (it's NOT an XOR situation, if you understand logic gates better)

Two. One doesn't HAVE to 'contribute to society'. If you want to be a hermit on the mountain, enjoy all the substances you want, never pay taxes, and generally live on your own away from 'society', you'd be exercising your Liberty.

Prejudice doesn't have to be against a race or religion...

nikolai
01-25-2008, 10:56 PM
EDIT: I'm retracting this statement because it's inaccurate. But I still want to emphasize that I don't think that unique situations in ideal conditions are a valid argument, especially when talking about the public.

phree
01-25-2008, 10:56 PM
About 1/4th of the people around here roll American Spirit additive free tobacco. I won't smoke any tailor mades. i can taste the formaldehyde. I would not smoke prepacked joints either. The potency would be off as it is a volatile essence and merely crushing it for processing at the factory would start to kill its subtleties.

Best
randy

I quit smoking when Three Castles stopped exporting to the US. Ah, such sweet beautiful blond shreds they are.

nikolai
01-25-2008, 11:01 PM
One. That assumes that doing crack once in a while prevents you from 'holding down a job', 'paying taxes', and 'contributing to society'. They are NOT mutually exclusive (it's NOT an XOR situation, if you understand logic gates better)

Two. One doesn't HAVE to 'contribute to society'. If you want to be a hermit on the mountain, enjoy all the substances you want, never pay taxes, and generally live on your own away from 'society', you'd be exercising your Liberty.

Prejudice doesn't have to be against a race or religion...

On your first point, we don't agree on the mutual exclusivity. No amount of argument will change that.

I agree with you on the second point, but I think you are creating an ideal situation that the vast majority of people will not abide to. I believe that people will not choose to exercise that liberty. They will either contribute to society or leach off of it.

KMA-NWO
01-25-2008, 11:01 PM
It's still converted into sugars by your body.

just not in the intense quantities you find in sodas and crap food.

yes, you can have a little cocaine, or you can snort a foot long inch wide line.

Greenskin
01-25-2008, 11:03 PM
On your first point, we don't agree on the mutual exclusivity. No amount of argument will change that.

I agree with you on the second point, but I think you are creating an ideal situation that the vast majority of people will not abide to. I believe that people will not choose to exercise that liberty. They will either contribute to society of leach off of it.

For being a Ron Paul supporter you really buy the MSM's portrayal of drug users.

IF U DO COCAIEN ONCE ULL BE ADIKCTED FOREVERRR LOLLLL

Soccrmastr
01-25-2008, 11:05 PM
Many people I talk to about Ron are very receptive, until I get to his stance on the "War on Drugs". Several people have accused me of being a pot smoker myself (I'm not), and others are repulsed at the idea of drugs being legal. I find myself unable to omit this part since it's an important issue that I'm passionate about. How should I effectively sell this delicate subject?

most conservatives are against the drug war anyway. well, real conservatives. Except for a different reason than libertarians, but still some common ground.

phree
01-25-2008, 11:07 PM
For being a Ron Paul supporter you really buy the MSM's portrayal of drug users.

IF U DO COCAIEN ONCE ULL BE ADIKCTED FOREVERRR LOLLLL

Most likely Nikolai has little or no experience with recreational drugs. The vast majority of people on this planet have experimented with some type of recreational substance and managed to maintain a reasonable level of social behavior.

KMA-NWO
01-25-2008, 11:10 PM
On your first point, we don't agree on the mutual exclusivity. No amount of argument will change that.

I agree with you on the second point, but I think you are creating an ideal situation that the vast majority of people will not abide to. I believe that people will not choose to exercise that liberty. They will either contribute to society of leach off of it.

If society gets too many leechers, eventually it will either change or collapse, as it aught to. If the people of a society are too child-minded (what else could you call it? mental illness?) to take responsible action, and instead acts in a destructive manner (simply 'using' drugs isn't destructive, it's how), this will eventually become reality.

I also believe the majority of people would take nanny-state over liberty, that's why our country is in the toilet.

If the American people remain stead-fast in their current beliefs, prejudices, and direction, this once great and libertarian union is toast, as it rightly aught to be because we (Americans) as a people no longer deserve our liberty. If it gets that bad, we deserve every punishment levied against us by the NWO for being so stupid and apathetic.*

*paragraph doesn't refer to readers here as they obviously don't fall into this category, but sadly it's only a small percentage of Americans that don't fit it and will be caught up in it.

nikolai
01-25-2008, 11:24 PM
For being a Ron Paul supporter you really buy the MSM's portrayal of drug users.

IF U DO COCAIEN ONCE ULL BE ADIKCTED FOREVERRR LOLLLL

I do not think that every word that comes from the mouth of the MSM is false. Granted I do believe that there is a lot of fabrication that does take place. To insinuate that because I don't believe that the MSM is completely falsified makes me incapable of supporting Ron Paul is a stretch to say the least. We should all be so lucky that we can find a presidential candidate whose campaign fits out own believes in all areas but one (that being the complete legalization of narcotics).

phree
01-25-2008, 11:27 PM
I do not think that every word that comes from the mouth of the MSM is false. Granted I do believe that there is a lot of fabrication that does take place. To insinuate that because I don't believe that the MSM is completely falsified makes me incapable of supporting Ron Paul is a stretch to say the least. We should all be so lucky that we can find a presidential candidate whose campaign fits out own believes in all areas but one (that being the complete legalization of narcotics).

The acid test* is whether or not you have experience with recreational drug use. If you do not then you are at a disadvantage in this debate.




*pun intended

nikolai
01-25-2008, 11:34 PM
I'm just going to say one more thing before I leave this thread, because if we are all being realistic, no one is going to change anyone's mind here. It's not that I am against the legalization of drugs, it's that there are degrees of control that are exhibited by different drugs. I don't think anyone here is going to argue that ibuprofren and heroine are both drugs. It's the ability of the average human being to use them appropriately, that concerns me. Even if the fed were to legalize drugs completely, the states would act as a safety net and regulate each substance differently between themselves. Even if some states did choose to completely legalize all substances, Americans would still be able to exercise their liberty and choose which states to live in or not.

nikolai
01-25-2008, 11:35 PM
The acid test* is whether or not you have experience with recreational drug use. If you do not then you are at a disadvantage in this debate.




*pun intended

I'll give. I have not. Have you ever used heroine?

phree
01-25-2008, 11:36 PM
I'll give. I have not. Have you ever used heroine?

Yes.

phree
01-26-2008, 10:13 AM
Well that killed the thread pretty quickly.

I've used several different recreational drugs in my lifetime (49 years), but I don't use them now. I wouldn't change my past, but I've outgrown drugs. The vast majority of people who experiment with drugs will work through it as I did, and not end up wandering the streets and stealing TVs.

After a certain point "straight" became another "high" for me, and I don't use drugs anymore because I prefer to stay clear-headed.

JenaS62
01-26-2008, 10:15 AM
My friends all love this message. Do I hang with the wrong crowd?


Yep mine too. In fact, maybe I AM the wrong crowd. ;)

phree
01-26-2008, 10:16 AM
Yep mine too. In fact, maybe I AM the wrong crowd. ;)

Well, judging by your avatar you probably are.:p

killatop
01-26-2008, 10:18 AM
It won't be LEGAL!!!! It's a state's right issue, just like abortion. Just tell them he doesn't like the federal government dealing with this. It is best handled by state and local government. Here in Georgia, Pot would still be illegal under the current state law. Nothing would change other than the federal government would no longer be in charge of throwing people in jail. I also throw in at the end....so in California where Medical Marijuana is legal, an 85 yr old grandmother suffering from cancer can't be thrown in jail by the Federal government.

Seanmc30
01-26-2008, 10:33 AM
Many people I talk to about Ron are very receptive, until I get to his stance on the "War on Drugs". Several people have accused me of being a pot smoker myself (I'm not), and others are repulsed at the idea of drugs being legal. I find myself unable to omit this part since it's an important issue that I'm passionate about. How should I effectively sell this delicate subject?

Heres a good way.

Ask them about it from the other end....if it were legal then all you have is a few more pot smokers:


-But you would also be eliminating drug dealers
-Lowering the cost of the drug (therefore reducing theft and robbery to pay for drug habits).
-No more drug dealers means less gang crime because there is no longer a market.
-Less gang crime, less murder, more people getting jobs in real places instead of breaking the law.
-Less people in prison for long sentences for comiting nonviolent "drug" crimes.
-NO MORE DRUG WAR!! No wasting billions and billions controlling something there will ALWAYS be a market for!

When you put it like that they might listen. Also mention that the alcoholic rate before prohibition was the same as it was during prohibition.... and it was the same when prohibition was abolished.....THERE WILL ALWAYS BE A MARKET.... why not make it a free market?

killatop
01-26-2008, 10:37 AM
Heres a good way.

Ask them about it from the other end....if it were legal then all you have is a few more pot smokers:


-But you would also be eliminating drug dealers
-Lowering the cost of the drug (therefore reducing theft and robbery to pay for drug habits).
-No more drug dealers means less gang crime because there is no longer a market.
-Less gang crime, less murder, more people getting jobs in real places instead of breaking the law.
-Less people in prison for long sentences for comiting nonviolent "drug" crimes.
-NO MORE DRUG WAR!! No wasting billions and billions controlling something there will ALWAYS be a market for!

When you put it like that they might listen. Also mention that the alcoholic rate before prohibition was the same as it was during prohibition.... and it was the same when prohibition was abolished.....THERE WILL ALWAYS BE A MARKET.... why not make it a free market?

Could also throw in - The drug will now be taxed like alchohol and cigarettes and the government could make that money not non-tax paying drug dealers.

jgmaynard
01-26-2008, 10:39 AM
Just like people grow their own tobacco? Heck I dont know anyone that rolls their own. People only grow their own marijuana cause they can't buy it prepackaged in a store.

When I smoked cigs, I rolled my own - came out to about $1.25 a pack, and it was better tobacco, and the government doesn't get nearly as much tax revenue from it - a triple win!


nikolai,

I know in my high school it was easier to get weed then alcohol. If you make any of those hard drugs legal most likely they would be sold similar to alcohol at a special store where you need to show ID. You can have strong laws against selling to minors. Since they will be real buisnesses they would have a lot to lose by violating those laws.

QFT


Yep mine too. In fact, maybe I AM the wrong crowd. ;)

Well, judging by the Janis icon, I'd say you are in the right crowd! :D

JM

Arklatex
01-26-2008, 10:45 AM
I've avoided this topic like the plague, because no matter how much info you provide some people with to form their own unbiased opinion you'll always be met with ridicule. We are fighting our whole system of thought from an early age, some people can just not accept it. It takes a truely intelligent individual to understand this issue.

I'll say one more thing: Big Pharma. They would hate you being able to grow your own medicine, for next too nothing from mother nature. They'd much rather have you hooked on their $200 a bottle prescriptions, which just lead to more problems and pills. Insurance companies and all. You can disagree with or agree with that, but it doesn't change this fact.

killatop
01-26-2008, 10:47 AM
A lot of my friends look at me as a reason as to why marijuana shouldn't be illegal. I smoke a lot, but have a great job, I get awards and big raises at work all the time because of work performance and I am a law abiding citizen other than I smoke. I drive the speed limit, I saw yes maam and no sire and I'm never a dick in traffic, I always let people over.

They basically think, why would I ever want "me" to go to jail, it's stupid because he doesn't hurt anyone nor himself for that matter.

FYI: None of my friends smoke. well one did but she was stupid and got caught because she didn't follow my 4 rules of not getting caught.

ceitniear
01-26-2008, 11:01 AM
No, no, no, as I understand it, RP's stance on marijuana is to decriminalize it on the federal level. States are still free to pass whatever laws they choose in regards to marijuana, but the main thrust of the argument is to get rid of the federal sentencing guidelines that can very well put a casual user in prison for life.

I don't think I'm wrong about this, but if I am, please feel free to correct.

affa
01-26-2008, 11:03 AM
I'm just going to say one more thing before I leave this thread, because if we are all being realistic, no one is going to change anyone's mind here. It's not that I am against the legalization of drugs, it's that there are degrees of control that are exhibited by different drugs. I don't think anyone here is going to argue that ibuprofren and heroine are both drugs. It's the ability of the average human being to use them appropriately, that concerns me. Even if the fed were to legalize drugs completely, the states would act as a safety net and regulate each substance differently between themselves. Even if some states did choose to completely legalize all substances, Americans would still be able to exercise their liberty and choose which states to live in or not.

Of course people can change people's minds here. Otherwise, what's the point of debate? Ego blather? There are plenty of open minded people out there (especially around here) who not only welcome debate but research opposing viewpoints. I'm sure Dr. Paul has opened many eyes.

"It's the ability of the average human being to use them appropriately, that concerns me."

It's easier to get many illegal drugs than prescription drugs. No doctor visit, no checkup... just money. All you need to know is who to ask - and while some anti-drug people don't, for the most part anyone who wants drugs does.

Point is - what is your point? How does criminalization stop people from using drugs?

And why/how should your estimate the 'ability of the average person' dictate law?

Spideynw
01-26-2008, 11:09 AM
The three major points I use about the drug war are:

1 - There is no evidence that the war on drugs has reduced drug usage, yet we have spent hundreds of billions of dollars on it.

2 - Alcohol is legal. If you are going to argue that we should keep the current illicit drugs illegal then you need to argue for the prohibition of alcohol as well.

3 - Lastly, the war on drugs is anti-family. Parents get arrested for simple possession.

Here is a little video I made. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x-PdpVNDFzk

gregb
01-26-2008, 11:09 AM
I think drugs should be legal. I think Dr Paul does too. I know some people don't. The question as I see it is how to tie in Dr Paul's belief with his other points. Sort of like how when asked about to get rid of income tax he connects it to bring the troops home, etc.

I watched the news quite closely after 9/11 with an eye on the anthrax scare. The word was that the borders were being shut down and indeed I know numerous people who were inconvenienced by the "clamp down". Now, if you are worried about anthrax then you are worried about white powder.

I didn't see any reports, and I looked for them and asked people in US cities, of desperate junkies and crackheads roving the streets ready to do anything for a fix. From the few people I know with a window into that scene it seems it was all as usual. I seem to recall reading that it takes 500 pounds a day of heroin to satisfy the USA, I don't remember exactly but it wasn't just an ounce or two. I decided then, that if I were trying to smuggle anthrax into the US that I'd disguise it as a pound of heroin.

So the problem becomes one of internal security. These smuggling networks will absolutely be there as long as a substantial amount of people need them to be there.

I should be able to run out of my house with a needle dangling from my arm, a joint dangling from my lips and a drink in my hand, up to a police officer and tell them that I just saw that person right there do something really bad without fear of my own arrest. That obviously isn't the case - there is a divide between law abiding drug users and the police.

The most important issue is the war on terror. Bringing the troops home stops citizens from dying in foreign lands but 9/11 and the anthrax scare both happened at home. You have to involve all citizens in the war and that includes the illegal drug users. You have to close the entry points for contraband getting in and if that means giving up the war on drugs then that is what has to be.

The main thing that needs to be done is to connect US vulnerability with the war on drugs. There will be no security without more control of the borders - from nukes to anthrax to bad people, they will get in, no chance of stopping them. US drug laws probably contribute the most to their inability to secure the borders.

Stopping the war on drugs, legalizing drugs can be a major part of the overall plan. Most of the issues in this election really revolve around the war on terror. It is fine to say that you will bring the US home and that terrorism is due to US involvement abroad but maybe some people actually do hate freedom and maybe some people just hold a grudge well. Stopping the war on drugs is a crucial part of securing the borders. It isn't just a side issue.

eldeeder
01-26-2008, 11:10 AM
IF YOU WANT TO LIVE IN A COUNTRY YOU CALL FREE, YOU HAVE THE RIGHT TO PUT WHATEVER YOU WANT TO, INTO YOUR OWN BODY, PERIOD.

Remind them that drugs are a social issue, not a criminal issue. Also, that legalized drugs see much more regulation. Its easier for a kid to get blow than beer, because drug dealers dont check id's. It would also destroy the black market economys. If they ask how, just ask them what a blackmarket bottle of vodka costs these days.

ValidusCustodiae
01-26-2008, 11:43 AM
You know, on paper that sounds great. But in reality, I just don't think it works out that way. Do you really think that if a super-addictive drug like heroin was cheap and easy to come by, that it would not create problem to society? If everyone lived in their own separate bubble, yeah, they can screw themselves up and it's their own problem. But that is not the real world. Everyone's lives affects those around them.

Marijuana is NOT the same as heroin. Marijuana is benign. Heroin is a serious problem.

A person can cause serious problems to themselves by using heroin. This is not the same as saying that heroin can cause serious problems. Heroin is just a substance. There is no Constitutional way to prohibit drugs at any level without the state having ownership of the property in question. Namely, your body. This is a fundamental flaw in prohibition laws.

As long as the government has jurisdiction over "drugs", they will have an excuse to spy on otherwise innocent people, break into otherwise innocent people's homes, and many people will end up being unnecessarily killed. This is not preferable to a situation where there are no legal repercussions to drug possession or use, only physical and psychological ones. Again, if a person breaks into my house, I want THEM to be judged and held responsible, not a substance they might have used. But honestly, the key question here is WHO owns YOUR body?

The government should not be in the business of forced preventative maintenance of those whose liberty it has been entrusted with protecting. In other words, what some of you seem to have a hard time understanding is that it's the government's job to protect your right to do whatever you want to with your body. The merits of drug use and abuse are for the individual to decide, not their government.

JenaS62
01-26-2008, 02:17 PM
Well, judging by your avatar you probably are.:p.


I was born in the early 1960's - I was a teenager in the 1970's. I don't think I knew anyone who DID NOT smoke pot.

phree
01-26-2008, 02:52 PM
.


I was born in the early 1960's - I was a teenager in the 1970's. I don't think I knew anyone who DID NOT smoke pot.

I was born in the late 50's and if you swept the halls of my high school you could collect a "nickel bag".

H Roark
01-26-2008, 03:07 PM
Ron Paul's official stance isn't to legalize all drugs, but rather to push it back on the states. The war on drugs is another big government program, and it is out of control.

For the OP, here is your answer. Perfect example is here in California where voters legalized medical Marijuana yet we still get raided periodically by the federal government.

dannno
01-26-2008, 03:12 PM
THC is fat soluble. You could theoretically create a lethal does by taking giant hail bays of the drug and cooking it in butter, then eating a massive quantity of the tainted butter.

You would die from the saturated fat in the butter first.

Jaykzo
01-26-2008, 03:16 PM
I'm not sure if it's been brought up, but L.A. now has marijuana vending machines inside their medical marijuana shops.

Makes me want to move out west :cool:

Shink
01-26-2008, 03:17 PM
I believe drugs should be banned, just like killing yourself is, the government has to have a say in certain parts of what you do. but ill still support paul :D

I hope you were being sarcastic. Laws against killing yourself or doing drugs DON'T. WORK. I don't do either one, but the government saying 'no' to something always makes you think maybe you ought to.

hcbrand
01-26-2008, 03:32 PM
It's one of the main reasons I moved right of center. Listen to a (pot smoking) liberal talk about how drugs can't be legailized because 'some people' can't be responsible for themselves and the government needs to intervene on 'their' behalf.

It's not a matter of right and wrong. It's a matter of freedom of choice.

JenaS62
01-26-2008, 03:44 PM
I'm not sure if it's been brought up, but L.A. now has marijuana vending machines inside their medical marijuana shops.

Makes me want to move out west :cool:


I'll race ya! :D

phree
01-26-2008, 03:47 PM
I'll race ya! :D

On your mark...

Get set...






Where are we going again?

JenaS62
01-26-2008, 04:00 PM
On your mark...

Get set...






Where are we going again?


West? Hum... I think it was west. I'll bring the Doritos Chips. :p

AzNsOuLjAh27
01-26-2008, 04:17 PM
Aspirin, which is commonly used for arthritis is believed to cause more than 1,000 deaths annually in the United States. Nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs), which also are routinely used for arthritis treatment cause more than 7,600 annual deaths and 70,000 hospitalizations. The gastrointestinal complications of NSAIDs are the most commonly reported serious adverse drug reaction. Long-term use of tylenol (acetaminophen) is thought to be one of the common causes of end-stage renal disease.
Marijuana smoked several times a day is often as effective as NSAIDs or acetaminophen in arthritis treatment, and without any reports of death.

Some quotes From the man that made it illegal Henry J Anslinger:

"There are 100,000 total marijuana smokers in the US, and most are Negroes, Hispanics, Filipinos, and entertainers. Their Satanic music, jazz, and swing, result from marijuana use. This marijuana causes white women to seek sexual relations with Negroes, entertainers, and any others."

- "In medical schools, the physician-to-be is taught that without opium he would be like a one-armed man. That is true, because you cannot get along without opium. But here we have drug that is not like opium. Opium has all of the good of Dr. Jekyll and all the evil of Mr. Hyde. This drug is entirely the monster Hyde, the harmful effect of which cannot be measured."

- "As a rule the addict passes into a dreamy state in which judgment is lost and imagination runs riot. Fantasies arise which are limitless and extravagant. Scenes pass before the mind's eye in kaleidoscopic confusion and there is no sense of the passing of time."

- "[Marijuana is] the most violence-causing drug in the history of mankind."

- "Marijuana is an addictive drug which produces in its users insanity, criminality, and death."



History: The first ever marijuana law enacted in the United States was in the colony of Jamestown, in the 1600s. It made the farming of hemp (the fibrous material from the stalks of cannabis plants) not illegal, but MANDATORY

JMO
01-26-2008, 04:18 PM
I thought this was a trick question, I was going to say YES to Both.

skyfi
01-26-2008, 06:02 PM
I'm a regular marijuana smoker, and the stigma with good old mary jane is downright scary. If people would take a few hours of their time and educate themselves on what blatant lies were told to the American people to get this useful plant prohibited.

Once someone wraps their mind around that, the notion that all drugs should be legalized. Question why drugs should be legal:
#1 The government has no right to tell you what you can and cannot put in your body.
#2 If people knew the facts about the drugs they were about to injest, I'm sure they would be inclined not to use them. Public awareness needs to be increased.
#3 The current drug laws effect blacks/hispanics at a disproportianate rate.
#4 Being an addict to a substance is not a crime, there is no crime because there is no vitcim; unless of course said adict stole/destroyed property to get enough money for their purchase, but this can be addressed because the only reason drugs are so high priced is the fact that they are prohibited. If they were regulated like any other drug, they would be much less expensive so the crime would actually be reduced. You might suggest then that everyone will start doing the drugs because their legal. In recent polls, 99% of Americans polled would not use heoirn, or other "hard drugs" if drugs were legalized. The reason I don't do cocaine is because its highly addictive, its bad for you physically, and the possible chance of overdose... Not because its illegal.) Using the same logic applied to the creation of our current drug laws, alcohol should be illegal too.

Just so everyone knows, I would consider myself a conservative christian and I live in the bible belt. I think if all Ron Paul supporters would look further into the issue we could raise public awareness to get behind Ron Paul for wanting to legalize drugs, instead of questioning whether not to dodge the subject or not hehe.


I would highly recomend everyone who hasn't read "The Emperor Wears No Clothes" by Jack Herrer (avaliable to purchase or read for free here:http://www.jackherer.com/) to do so. Inside its pages you will find the true history of this plant Cannabis Hemp, and find out how its legal growing begins we could become completely energy independent, quit cutting down trees for construction materials and paper, as well as provide alternative means of medication (with way better side effects!). I mean, this stuff has been legally grown and used for clothing, paper (including the first draft of the Declaration of Independence), ropes and sails for ships, and it was the in the top 3 of widely spread used medicine for thousands of years upon almost every country on the planet. It was chosen for its cure of many ailments, with minimal negative side effects.







I didn't read through the 10+ pages of replies, just giving my 2 cents on the subject.

dvictr
01-26-2008, 06:03 PM
I'm a regular marijuana smoker, and the stigma with good old mary jane is downright scary. If people would take a few hours of their time and educate themselves on what blatant lies were told to the American people to get this useful plant prohibited.

Once someone wraps their mind around that, the notion that all drugs should be legalized. Question why drugs should be legal:
#1 The government has no right to tell you what you can and cannot put in your body.
#2 If people knew the facts about the drugs they were about to injest, I'm sure they would be inclined not to use them. Public awareness needs to be increased.
#3 The current drug laws effect blacks/hispanics at a disproportianate rate.
#4 Being an addict to a substance is not a crime, there is no crime because there is no vitcim; unless of course said adict stole/destroyed property to get enough money for their purchase, but this can be addressed because the only reason drugs are so high priced is the fact that they are prohibited. If they were regulated like any other drug, they would be much less expensive so the crime would actually be reduced. You might suggest then that everyone will start doing the drugs because their legal. In recent polls, 99% of Americans polled would not use heoirn, or other "hard drugs" if drugs were legalized. The reason I don't do cocaine is because its highly addictive, its bad for you physically, and the possible chance of overdose... Not because its illegal.) Using the same logic applied to the creation of our current drug laws, alcohol should be illegal too.

Just so everyone knows, I would consider myself a conservative christian and I live in the bible belt. I think if all Ron Paul supporters would look further into the issue we could raise public awareness to get behind Ron Paul for wanting to legalize drugs, instead of questioning whether not to dodge the subject or not hehe.


I would highly recomend everyone who hasn't read "The Emperor Wears No Clothes" by Jack Herrer (avaliable to purchase or read for free here:http://www.jackherer.com/) to do so. Inside its pages you will find the true history of this plant Cannabis Hemp, and find out how its legal growing begins we could become completely energy independent, quit cutting down trees for construction materials and paper, as well as provide alternative means of medication (with way better side effects!). I mean, this stuff has been legally grown and used for clothing, paper (including the first draft of the Declaration of Independence), ropes and sails for ships, and it was the in the top 3 of widely spread used medicine for thousands of years upon almost every country on the planet. It was chosen for its cure of many ailments, with minimal negative side effects.







I didn't read through the 10+ pages of replies, just giving my 2 cents on the subject.


bump

dvictr
01-26-2008, 06:03 PM
IT'S AN unprocessed PLANT!!!

FreedomAndLaw
01-26-2008, 06:17 PM
bump + a few links

http://youtube.com/watch?v=eWEmS4LAGEo - Terence McKenna : drugs in social systems

http://youtube.com/watch?v=nq6N4kQK-KA - Terence McKenna : Food Of The Gods Mexico interview

Food Of The Gods : http://www.brainsturbator.com/pdf/TerenceMcKenna-FoodOfTheGods.pdf