CNN on ending war on drugs

[Vote Waterman 2028]

Today on cnn with Rick Sanchez (usually can't stand him), he had an interview with an el paso councilmen on what would happen if we ended the war on drugs. Rick actually had a positive tone towards this idea. Could this be the beginning of the media push for the end of the war on drugs ?! Maybe they are finally waking up, the culture has changed majorly in the past 10 years. I know many adults, and accomplished individuals that smoke weed or do cocaine occasionally. Should be intresting to see considering how much money it generates per year, and how much our country needs capital at the moment.

[HOLLYWOOD]

Obviously, CNN's behind the scenes staff are reading the Liberty Forrest/RPF. Ventura, and Liberty forums...

Maybe they have some, SOME, decent people there!

[socialize_me]

It might be possible considering Obama is an ex-cocaine user and a heavy chain smoker. He tokes it up nightly.

[Wendi]

Maybe he's not-so "ex" :D

[Vote Waterman 2028]

well his new efficiency expert that he appointed to the new positiion today should notice that the War on Drugs is one of if not the most ineffective programs and that it should be cut. Not only that but it can bring about hundreds of billions in revenue each year. Should be interesting how these things change with the economic crisis. I am not for legalizing lethal drugs though, such as heroin, meth, etc. I am for a war on those drugs, to an extent.

[surf]

http://www.boston.com/bostonglobe/editorial_opinion/editorials/articles/2008/12/13/wrong_kind_of_drug_czar/


REPRESENTATIVE Jim Ramstad, a Republican from Minnesota, is said to be a candidate for drug czar in the Obama administration. This would take bipartisanship one step too far, at the expense of public health.

Ramstad, who is retiring after 18 years in office, gets high marks for working with a Democratic colleague, Patrick Kennedy of Rhode Island, to require insurers to cover mental health and addiction treatment (the two men are alcohol recovery partners). But Ramstad has also voted repeatedly against federal funding for needle exchange programs for drug users to fight the spread of HIV/AIDS. Washington's paralysis on this issue goes back to when President Clinton let his drug czar, Barry McCaffrey, sabotage funding efforts by Donna Shalala, then secretary of Health and Human Services. McCaffrey hyperbolically called clean-needle programs "magnets for all social ills." In 2002, Clinton admitted that "I was wrong" not to lift the funding ban.

A study this fall in The Lancet found that only 1.5 percent of injecting drug users in Australia have HIV, compared with 16 percent in the United States. "That's largely because we acted very quickly in the 1980s to implement methadone programs and needle exchange programs when other countries like the US were dragging their heels," study author Bradley Mathers of Australia's National Drug and Alcohol Research Center told the Associated Press. Anthony Fauci, director for infectious disease at the National Institutes of Health, flatly says, "needle exchange programs work. There's no doubt about that."

The Centers for Disease Control says the national HIV infection rate is now 40 percent higher than previously thought. Injection drug use causes 12 percent of new infections. Obama, a supporter of needle exchange, has no time to thread the needle with his drug czar.



From what little i know about this guy - he seems to be a drug warrior. Now that's change you can believe in....

[schiffstudent]

Should be intresting to see considering how much money it generates per year, and how much our country needs capital at the moment.

Also our country is in desperate need of a new generation of junkies that will ruin the lives of themselves and their families, I'm sure ending the war on drugs will help with that. If I was a person of power in the NWO, I would say that legalizing drugs would be the best thing I could do to weed out the the weak of society. Eugenics at it's best. Keeping a society drugged is also a great way of making them not aware of what is happening to them, essentially turning them into sheep.

[kathy88]

Also our country is in desperate need of a new generation of junkies that will ruin the lives of themselves and their families, I'm sure ending the war on drugs will help with that. If I was a person of power in the NWO, I would say that legalizing drugs would be the best thing I could do to weed out the the weak of society. Eugenics at it's best. Keeping a society drugged is also a great way of making them not aware of what is happening to them, essentially turning them into sheep.



Puhlease. Most addicts start using in their teens and early twenties, and a huge percentage of THEM would tell you that it was because of the "taboo" attached. It's a way to stick it to their parents, teachers and "the man." If drugs were decriminalized that attraction would be gone. You think addicts go out and vote? These aren't sheep.

[ronpaulhawaii]

Also our country is in desperate need of a new generation of junkies that will ruin the lives of themselves and their families, I'm sure ending the war on drugs will help with that. If I was a person of power in the NWO, I would say that legalizing drugs would be the best thing I could do to weed out the the weak of society. Eugenics at it's best. Keeping a society drugged is also a great way of making them not aware of what is happening to them, essentially turning them into sheep.

Sheep like these ?

http://www.erowid.org/culture/characters/characters_drug_use.shtml

:rolleyes:

[schiffstudent]

If drugs were decriminalized that attraction would be gone. You think addicts go out and vote? These aren't sheep.

Decriminalization would make drugs undesirable? Are you serious? After prohibition, didn't more people drink? How can you say the same won't happen with heroine or cocaine. People do hard drugs for all kinds of reasons to change their state of mind, not just to stick it to their parents. There will always be people out there that will say that "I wont get addicted" and they will try it, get addicted and ruin there lives, period. Now if your advocating legalizing pot, I'm for that, anything else is stupid.

[Danke]

Sheep like these ?

http://www.erowid.org/culture/characters/characters_drug_use.shtml

:rolleyes:

Reptilians do drugs.


http://www.stonerforums.com/lounge/attachments/pets-animals/948d1180884125-green-lizard-picture-866.jpg

[MRoCkEd]

Decriminalization would make drugs undesirable? Are you serious? After prohibition, didn't more people drink? How can you say the same won't happen with heroine or cocaine. People do hard drugs for all kinds of reasons to change their state of mind, not just to stick it to their parents. There will always be people out there that will say that "I wont get addicted" and they will try it, get addicted and ruin there lives, period. Now if your advocating legalizing pot, I'm for that, anything else is stupid.
So you believe the government has the right to lock you in prison for making a personal decision to put something in your own body?

[schiffstudent]

Sheep like these ?

http://www.erowid.org/culture/characters/characters_drug_use.shtml

:rolleyes:

The people here tried those things, most of them didn't live on them. I've used most of those drugs on their too, and if they weren't illegal at the time and I had a ready supply of them at all times then who knows where I would be today. I got to believe though that I wouldn't be as accomplished I as I am right now without them.

[schiffstudent]

So you believe the government has the right to lock you in prison for making a personal decision to put something in your own body?

For pot and peyote no, anything else yes, because those substances grab hold of people's mind, can make them addicts and destroy them. What's Ron Paul's position on legalizing narcotics??

[dannno]

Also our country is in desperate need of a new generation of junkies that will ruin the lives of themselves and their families, I'm sure ending the war on drugs will help with that. If I was a person of power in the NWO, I would say that legalizing drugs would be the best thing I could do to weed out the the weak of society. Eugenics at it's best. Keeping a society drugged is also a great way of making them not aware of what is happening to them, essentially turning them into sheep.

What makes you think that drug legalization will increase usage?

[dannno]

The people here tried those things, most of them didn't live on them. I've used most of those drugs on their too, and if they weren't illegal at the time and I had a ready supply of them at all times then who knows where I would be today. I got to believe though that I wouldn't be as accomplished I as I am right now without them.

Why do you think there would be a ready supply of most of these substances if the profit margins were significantly decreased?

[schiffstudent]

Danke, in 1981 the movie Cheech and Chong's Nice Dreams does indeed show us that reptilians like pot.

[RSLudlum]

Decriminalization would make drugs undesirable? Are you serious? After prohibition, didn't more people drink? How can you say the same won't happen with heroine or cocaine. People do hard drugs for all kinds of reasons to change their state of mind, not just to stick it to their parents. There will always be people out there that will say that "I wont get addicted" and they will try it, get addicted and ruin there lives, period. Now if your advocating legalizing pot, I'm for that, anything else is stupid.

So you're for criminalizing cigarettes? I know alot of people addicted to cigarettes and alot of them have done the 'hard' drugs and didn't get hooked on them. I used to smoke pot, drop acid, and rolled plenty in my youth, then I stopped no problem at all; haven't touched any of it in 12 years even though I know where to get them.

[surf]

my understanding is that throughout history, addiction rates have run around 1-2%, whether or not prohibition exists. As Harry Browne would point out - at the turn of the 20th century you could buy heroin at the drug store and i believe Coca Cola contained cocaine.

it's really all about personal responsibility. as someone residing near the heroin capital of the world (according to Rolling Stone magazine), i can honestly say that - while provided the opportunity - i have never considering trying a drug that had, as i understood it, the potential to be addictive (with the exception of alcohol).

the assumption that decriminalizing drugs would lead to a nation/world full of addicts is flawed.

[MRoCkEd]

Criminilization does not stop people from using drugs.
It does waste resources, increase crime, and make using drugs more dangerous, however.

[schiffstudent]

Why do you think there would be a ready supply of most of these substances if the profit margins were significantly decreased?

I don't see your reasoning, we could be in the 1920's talking right now about alcohol and what your saying wouldn't pan out. Many people opened their own distilleries and started making delicious beverages. The profits weren't as big as before prohibition I bet per liter of alcohol, but the sells quantity made up for it.

[powerofreason]

Decriminalization would make drugs undesirable? Are you serious? After prohibition, didn't more people drink? How can you say the same won't happen with heroine or cocaine. People do hard drugs for all kinds of reasons to change their state of mind, not just to stick it to their parents. There will always be people out there that will say that "I wont get addicted" and they will try it, get addicted and ruin there lives, period. Now if your advocating legalizing pot, I'm for that, anything else is stupid.

How ignorant of you to suggest that all drug use except weed is bad for you. Drug addiction does not have to mean your life is ruined. Your implying that drugs would still be expensive in a free society, which is wrong. They will be very, very cheap. It takes 10 square miles of poppy fields to feed the entire American appetite for heroin. And they grow practically anywhere on the planet. Furthermore, pharmaceutically pure heroin has no negative effect on any organ system of the body. Today, its tough to tell how pure your heroin is greatly increasing risk of overdose and putting crappy adulterants into your body.

Cocaine is bad for your heart, its not something you want to do all the time. All drugs are different. The next step after ending the drug war is ending discrimination against responsible drug users.

[dannno]

For pot and peyote no, anything else yes, because those substances grab hold of people's mind, can make them addicts and destroy them. What's Ron Paul's position on legalizing narcotics??

He wants to end the war on drugs and let the states handle it. On the state level, he believes that individuals have the right to make their own decisions regarding what they put into their bodies.

Do you REALLY think you would be a drug addict if drugs were legal? I mean, I've tried addictive drugs, then had access to these addictive drugs and still had no desire to buy them when they were available because I realized how dangerous they were. Even if people were giving out these drugs for free on the streets, I still wouldn't take them. For one thing, I have access to safer alternatives such as cannabis, why would I take something dangerous? If you legalize drugs, you would be surprised how over time people will gravitate towards the safer, more natural substances... more often in their natural form. Ancient people who chewed on coca leaves don't end up shooting up cocaine, drugs become more potent and compact due to the war on drugs.

[powerofreason]

Good god narcotics are not bad for you! Impure and expensive narcotics are.

[schiffstudent]

the assumption that decriminalizing drugs would lead to a nation/world full of addicts is flawed.

The assumption that you would make society better is probably the dumbest argument I have ever heard. Those societies don't exist in the world for a reason, it never works, just like communism. Wow, I had no idea there will so many people on here that want all drugs legalized. The again, please someone answer what is Ron Paul's position on legalizing narcotics??

[dannno]

I don't see your reasoning, we could be in the 1920's talking right now about alcohol and what your saying wouldn't pan out. Many people opened their own distilleries and started making delicious beverages. The profits weren't as big as before prohibition I bet per liter of alcohol, but the sells quantity made up for it.

Where's the moonshine?

My point is that when the profit margin for drugs go down and people move to safer substances, many of the more dangerous drugs will likely disappear or be difficult to find because the profit margin has gone down so far it's not worth selling, and access to safer substances will increase and people will prefer those.

[devil21]

The assumption that you would make society better is probably the dumbest argument I have ever heard. Those societies don't exist in the world for a reason, it never works, just like communism. Wow, I had no idea there will so many people on here that want all drugs legalized. The again, please someone answer what is Ron Paul's position on legalizing narcotics??

Easy one. It's a state issue and the feds should not be involved. He is also pro-medical marijuana and pro-liberty, which means people are free to put whatever they wish into their bodies as long as they don't harm anyone else. Makes a hell of a lot of sense to me.

[schiffstudent]

He wants to end the war on drugs and let the states handle it. On the state level, he believes that individuals have the right to make their own decisions regarding what they put into their bodies.

Do you REALLY think you would be a drug addict if drugs were legal? I mean, I've tried addictive drugs, then had access to these addictive drugs and still had no desire to buy them when they were available because I realized how dangerous they were. Even if people were giving out these drugs for free on the streets, I still wouldn't take them. For one thing, I have access to safer alternatives such as cannabis, why would I take something dangerous? If you legalize drugs, you would be surprised how over time people will gravitate towards the safer, more natural substances... more often in their natural form. Ancient people who chewed on coca leaves don't end up shooting up cocaine, drugs become more potent and compact due to the war on drugs.

Interesting, this is the first I have heard that argument on having the states handle it. As for me, yes there was a time where if I had an endless supply of coke I could have messed my life up. You don't have a weekend crack addict for a reason you know. Shit has hands that will grab hold of you and destroy you.

[dannno]

The assumption that you would make society better is probably the dumbest argument I have ever heard. Those societies don't exist in the world for a reason, it never works, just like communism.

What are you talking about? Drugs were legal in the US before the 1930s, less alcohol prohibition.



Wow, I had no idea there will so many people on here that want all drugs legalized. The again, please someone answer what is Ron Paul's position on legalizing narcotics??

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o8S8N2OG7sU

Can somebody make sure this is the debate where he also talks about the death penalty? I can't youtube at work and have to find these via google.. If it isn't PLEASE post the answer from the debate where he talks about the death penalty afterwards.

[devil21]

Interesting, this is the first I have heard that argument on having the states handle it. As for me, yes there was a time where if I had an endless supply of coke I could have messed my life up. You don't have a weekend crack addict for a reason you know. Shit has hands that will grab hold of you and destroy you.

If thats the first you've heard of "state's rights" then you should brush up on your Constitution knowledge and become a "paulstudent" as well as a "schiffstudent".

[libertea]

The again, please someone answer what is Ron Paul's position on legalizing narcotics??

Google it!

[powerofreason]

The assumption that you would make society better is probably the dumbest argument I have ever heard. Those societies don't exist in the world for a reason, it never works, just like communism. Wow, I had no idea there will so many people on here that want all drugs legalized. The again, please someone answer what is Ron Paul's position on legalizing narcotics??

What are you a D.A.R.E. cop? The last poll done on the drug legalization (all of them) question it was about 85% in favor on this forum. Its a personal choice. There is an unfortunate stigma around drug addiction. Yet it only becomes a problem if it causes you to neglect your responsibilities. There are responsible heroin users, and heroin is probably the most addictive drug out there besides speedballing. You can be high on heroin and still be quite productive. Its only at higher doses that the sedation effect becomes more apparent.

[dannno]

Interesting, this is the first I have heard that argument on having the states handle it. As for me, yes there was a time where if I had an endless supply of coke I could have messed my life up. You don't have a weekend crack addict for a reason you know. Shit has hands that will grab hold of you and destroy you.

If you had gone on your coke binge you probably would have been over it after about a week or so. You would be sitting there thinking, "what the hell am I doing? What a waste of time!!" and you would snap out of it and go live your life, possibly continuing in moderation or switching to a safer substance if you had a bad experience.

You probably wouldn't overdose, because most overdoses are actually caused primarily by the impurities in drugs. Impurities are a product of the black market, like moonshine.

[powerofreason]

"If we could sniff or swallow something that would, for five or six hours each day, abolish our solitude as individuals, atone us with our fellows in a glowing exaltation of affection and make life in all its aspects seem not only worth living, but divinely beautiful and significant, and if this heavenly, world-transfiguring drug were of such a kind that we could wake up next morning with a clear head and an undamaged constitution - then, it seems to me, all our problems (and not merely the one small problem of discovering a novel pleasure) would be wholly solved and earth would become paradise."


ALDOUS HUXLEY
1894 - 1963

Think about it. That doesn't sound so bad, does it?

[schiffstudent]

What are you talking about? Drugs were legal in the US before the 1930s, less alcohol prohibition.


It's hard to keep up with you guys. Most people had no knowledge of drugs before the 1930's, other than opium there was just alcohol that was forbidden. My point is that today, give me a country, a society that has a complete legalization of all drugs?
I don't know of any, and don't say Holland, hard drugs there are illegal.

[schiffstudent]

What are you a D.A.R.E. cop? The last poll done on the drug legalization (all of them) question it was about 85% in favor on this forum. Its a personal choice. There is an unfortunate stigma around drug addiction. Yet it only becomes a problem if it causes you to neglect your responsibilities. There are responsible heroin users, and heroin is probably the most addictive drug out there besides speedballing. You can be high on heroin and still be quite productive. Its only at higher doses that the sedation effect becomes more apparent.

I'm an NWO operative and a D.A.R.E. cop:D

You're right, I do keep forgetting that there are responsible heroine users, they don't get the recognition they deserve.

[RevolutionSD]

Decriminalization would make drugs undesirable? Are you serious? After prohibition, didn't more people drink? How can you say the same won't happen with heroine or cocaine. People do hard drugs for all kinds of reasons to change their state of mind, not just to stick it to their parents. There will always be people out there that will say that "I wont get addicted" and they will try it, get addicted and ruin there lives, period. Now if your advocating legalizing pot, I'm for that, anything else is stupid.

What's stupid is to have any drug be illegal.
It's not up to the government to decide what we can and can't put into our bodies.
Not only that, 25+ years of the multi-billion dollar war on drugs and there are just as many if not more drug users than when it started.
Not only that, the drug dealers themselves are the ones who WANT to keep the war on drugs going, and have a big influence in government to see that this happens.

The war on drugs is an absolute joke whether we are talking about pot, heroin, cocain, or alcohol.

[MRoCkEd]

Myth No. 1: Heroin and cocaine have a permanent effect.

Truth: There is no evidence of that.

In the 1980s, the press reported that "crack babies" were "permanently damaged." Rolling Stone, citing one study of just 23 babies, claimed that crack babies "were oblivious to affection, automatons."

It simply wasn't true . There is no proof that crack babies do worse than anyone else in later life.

Myth No. 2: If you do crack once, you are hooked.

Truth: Look at the numbers -- 15 percent of young adults have tried crack, but only 2 percent used it in the last month. If crack is so addictive, why do most people who've tried it no longer use it?

People once said heroin was nearly impossible to quit, but during the Vietnam War, thousands of soldiers became addicted, and when they returned home, 85 percent quit within one year.

People have free will. Most who use drugs eventually wise up and stop.

And most people who use drugs habitually live perfectly responsible lives, as Jacob Sullum pointed out in "Saying Yes".

Myth No. 3: Drugs cause crime.

Truth: The drug war causes the crime.

Few drug users hurt or rob people because they are high. Most of the crime occurs because the drugs are illegal and available only through a black market. Drug sellers arm themselves and form gangs because they cannot ask the police to protect their persons and property.

In turn, some buyers steal to pay the high black-market prices. The government says heroin, cocaine and nicotine are similarly addictive, and about half the people who both smoke cigarettes and use cocaine say smoking is at least as strong an urge. But no one robs convenience stores for Marlboros.

Alcohol prohibition created Al Capone and the Mafia. Drug prohibition is worse. It's corrupting whole countries and financing terrorism.


http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2008/06/legalize_all_drugs.html

[RevolutionSD]

It's hard to keep up with you guys. Most people had no knowledge of drugs before the 1930's, other than opium there was just alcohol that was forbidden. My point is that today, give me a country, a society that has a complete legalization of all drugs?
I don't know of any, and don't say Holland, hard drugs there are illegal.

Schiffstudent, you are FAR from a libertarian.
You're advocating violence against people who have done nothing wrong. That's pretty sick and twisted, especially in this forum.

[schiffstudent]

Schiffstudent, you are FAR from a libertarian.
You're advocating violence against people who have done nothing wrong. That's pretty sick and twisted, especially in this forum.

Quote it man, I said nothing of the sort. The death penalty for drugs is absolutely sick and twisted, that I do agree on.

[kombayn]

Decriminalization would make drugs undesirable? Are you serious? After prohibition, didn't more people drink? How can you say the same won't happen with heroine or cocaine. People do hard drugs for all kinds of reasons to change their state of mind, not just to stick it to their parents. There will always be people out there that will say that "I wont get addicted" and they will try it, get addicted and ruin there lives, period. Now if your advocating legalizing pot, I'm for that, anything else is stupid.

People who abuse drugs are weak-minded individuals to begin with. I've done almost every drug known to man and the only thing I do on a consistent everyday basis is smoke pot. Everything else is just too much, Cocaine, Heroin & Meth have very addictive qualities but it takes the individual to abuse it. Myself, I've done blow and it's not that great. It balances your alcohol when you're drunk which is the only positive quality, the other two are horrendous and just nasty drugs to begin with.

Now LSD & Shrooms... Good times, when done with people who are not morons and think they're dying when they start trippin'. (They should be sober in the first place) Anyways, it's all to the individual. I can proudly say drugs have never ruined my life because I am responsible and know that I have other things to take care of then trying to "have a good time".

[RevolutionSD]

Quote it man, I said nothing of the sort. The death penalty for drugs is absolutely sick and twisted, that I do agree on.

You want to keep the war on drugs going, that is supporting violence. What happens when a government thug catches you with an illegal substance? Don't try to hide from the violence that you support to get your way.

[powerofreason]

Schiffstudent, I have a question for you. I had the day off from school today because of snow, so I popped some codeine and turned on comedy central. Should I be kidnapped by the police and thrown in a jail cell? What penalty should I suffer for my reprehensible behavior? :rolleyes:

[dannno]

Bush just pardoned 190 people today, 31 of them for drug charges including smuggling.

I hate to break it to you schiff, but the drug trade is owned and operated by elite global intelligence operations connected to the CIA.

Go checkout The Clinton Chronicles, it's on google video. The CIA was bringing in massive amounts of cocaine to Mena, AK while Bill Clinton was Governor. A lot of the money was being laundered through BCCI as well as Rose Law Firm (Hillary's law firm..).

There's another video, hopefully somebody can post, of two boys who were murdered by the Clinton gang for snooping around the airport in Mena. They put their bodies in plastic on the train tracks. Several other people were murdered while investigating the case because they found out what actually happened.

Check this out:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4t3pl5Wxgyg


If you support the war on drugs, you support our corrupt government who controls the market and uses the profits to fund armies in other countries for political gain in order to control their resources.

All because there are some people who don't want to see others using drugs, so they try and stop them by force. This just increases the profit margin which increases the ability and desire for the thugs to supply. And so it doesn't even work.

[schiffstudent]

You want to keep the war on drugs going, that is supporting violence. What happens when a government thug catches you with an illegal substance? Don't try to hide from the violence that you support to get your way.

The rules of engagement don't change whether I have drugs or anything else that might be deemed illegal. If cops raid my house right now and I'm doing a line on my coffee table you think they have the right to shoot me?? They don't at all, if I'm armed and engaging them that's different.

[sevin]

I sometimes think they ended prohibition in '33 so the people would be more docile during the depression. Better to have people stay home and drink than be out in the streets protesting government intervention.

Maybe the same thing will happen with marijuana.

[schiffstudent]

Schiffstudent, I have a question for you. I had the day off from school today because of snow, so I popped some codeine and turned on comedy central. Should I be kidnapped by the police and thrown in a jail cell? What penalty should I suffer for my reprehensible behavior? :rolleyes:

As a D.A.R.E. special agent, I'm dispatching a NARC team to your house right now powerofreason ;)

Dude comon, that's a bit dramatic. But going back to my original question, someone give me a society that has a open door policy on drugs and has no junkies. It doesnt exist, because it cant, it's a utopia fantasy that won't work. If did work why wont Holland legalize all narcotics there??

[dannno]

The rules of engagement don't change whether I have drugs or anything else that might be deemed illegal. If cops raid my house right now and I'm doing a line on my coffee table you think they have the right to shoot me?? They don't at all, if I'm armed and engaging them that's different.

That's it :mad:


I'm breaking it out.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IHB2I83_N_k

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MGGDVm4mmTo

(I think there's a third part too, you'll have to find it on your own)

[dannno]

As a D.A.R.E. special agent, I'm dispatching a NARC team to your house right now powerofreason ;)

Dude comon, that's a bit dramatic. But going back to my original question, someone give me a society that has a open door policy on drugs and has no junkies. It doesnt exist, because it cant, it's a utopia fantasy that won't work. If did work why wont Holland legalize all narcotics there??

Give me a society that has prohibition without junkies and a low crime rate.

Look, the Netherlands legalized cannabis decades ago, and they have much lower rates of cannabis usage than the United States.

[powerofreason]

As a D.A.R.E. special agent, I'm dispatching a NARC team to your house right now powerofreason ;)

Dude comon, that's a bit dramatic. But going back to my original question, someone give me a society that has a open door policy on drugs and has no junkies. It doesnt exist, because it cant, it's a utopia fantasy that won't work. If did work why wont Holland legalize all narcotics there??

Dude, making drugs illegal doesn't decrease the amount of people addicted to hard drugs, and it shouldn't matter anyways. People own their own bodies so they can put whatever they want in them. Thats what it comes down to.

[powerofreason]

The reason why governments won't legalize drugs is so they can make money off it, duh. That, and some people (politicians) just like to control others. But here's another question for you. If all illegal drugs are so bad for you, why does the government have to lie about their effects?

[powerofreason]

Switzerland, btw, prescribes heroin to heroin junkies. And enforcement of drug laws is quite loose there as well. You can also own military grade assault weapons in Switzerland from what I hear. Woot!

[schiffstudent]

Give me a society that has prohibition without junkies and a low crime rate.

Look, the Netherlands legalized cannabis decades ago, and they have much lower rates of cannabis usage than the United States.

Absolutely, I'm well of aware of those statistics and I think that's exactly how this country should handle cannabis, but why won't Holland do that with heroine an cocaine??? Because they know it's can shit they don't want open up to their society. They don't want to take care of the addicts with the needles and the methadone even more so then they already do, because it's fucking drain on their economy supporting the bums.

[dannno]

Absolutely, I'm well of aware of those statistics and I think that's exactly how this country should handle cannabis, but why won't Holland do that with heroine an cocaine??? Because they know it's can shit they don't want open up to their society. They don't want to take care of the addicts with the needles and the methadone even more so then they already do, because it's fucking drain on their economy supporting the bums.

No, they do it because those drugs are highly profitable and legalization would cause their country to become a haven for producers and smugglers into other countries. They don't do it to punish the users.

[Call Me V]

Benadryl is great.

[schiffstudent]

When to comes to crime rates in Holland, it's basically the same as the U.S.
http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/cri_tot_cri_percap-crime-total-crimes-per-capita

[powerofreason]

Benadryl is great.

Whats in it? Dipenhydramine? Goes well with codeine (cures the itchies) but by itself.... kinda lame.

[dannno]

There is still no moral or logical reason to make drugs illegal.

[schiffstudent]

There is still no moral or logical reason to make drugs illegal.

Do you have kids?

[dannno]

Do you have kids?

If I did, then they would be able to obtain cocaine and other illegal drugs more easily than alcohol. That is a direct result of prohibition. Is that your goal?

[Call Me V]

Whats in it? Dipenhydramine? Goes well with codeine (cures the itchies) but by itself.... kinda lame.

Yeah (Diphen)

600mg is fun stuff.

[heavenlyboy34]

You drug warriors on here ought to be madder at the government's FDA for being one of the planet's biggest drug dealers than the users and street dealers who are just engaging in the free (tho "illegal") market exchange.

[constituent]

There will always be people out there that will say that "I wont get addicted" and they will try it, get addicted and ruin there lives, period. Now if your advocating legalizing pot, I'm for that, anything else is stupid.

says the guy who cannot differentiate between either there and their or your and you're, but whatever man, i'm sure you've got it all figured out.

[speciallyblend]

Also our country is in desperate need of a new generation of junkies that will ruin the lives of themselves and their families, I'm sure ending the war on drugs will help with that. If I was a person of power in the NWO, I would say that legalizing drugs would be the best thing I could do to weed out the the weak of society. Eugenics at it's best. Keeping a society drugged is also a great way of making them not aware of what is happening to them, essentially turning them into sheep.

you are so far off base with everything you said you should be on mars ,get a clue


one fact here for you ,alcohol is far more dangerous then weed, as for weed ,eating weed is 100% safe. Stop watching reefer madness and educate yourself. If you have a 4yr degree then you wasted your money!


your probably one of those that believe that marijuana is a gateway drug? well your 100% wrong if you do. The gateway drug is alcohol and nicotine and government stats prove it, go look for yourself;)
the only danger of marijuana is ill-informed people and the laws against it!!! for your info marijuana was not made illegal because it was a drug. It was made illegal because of its raw materials and uses for everything you basically have that is made from plastic or padding in cars ,actually in WW2 if you did not grow hemp farmers were fined.


eating marijuana is not weak it is smarter the anyone drinking alcohol . marijuana is proven safer to your body then most common veggies. your comment is BS


sound like a brainwashed dare program zombie!!


you would probably have jesus arrested since he was annointed at birth by oils that contained cannabis oils or you would have him weeded(no pun) out since he is a weakness in society!

[Wendi]

A teen could get just about any illegal drug they wanted in my high school's hallway, but getting alcohol or cigarettes was darn near impossible.

[schiffstudent]

If I did, then they would be able to obtain cocaine and other illegal drugs more easily than alcohol. That is a direct result of prohibition. Is that your goal?

You live in the projects or something? I think slipping an adult $10 bucks so he can buy you and your friends a six pack is a little bit easier then getting trying to find an 8 ball somewhere. My goal is protecting our my child first and foremost, having him grow up in a society free of junkies feeding off the system is part of that.

Lifting prohibition off alcohol didn't do anything to stop alcoholics, it just made more of them, legalizing narcotics wont stop addicts or do anything to decrease their numbers.

[dannno]

you are so far off base with everything you said you should be on mars ,get a clue


one fact here for you ,alcohol is far more dangerous then weed, as for weed ,eating weed is 100% safe. Stop watching reefer madness and educate yourself. If you have a 4yr degree then you wasted your money!


your probably one of those that believe that marijuana is a gateway drug? well your 100% wrong if you do. The gateway drug is alcohol and nicotine and government stats prove it, go look for yourself;)
the only danger of marijuana is ill-informed people and the laws against it!!! for your info marijuana was not made illegal because it was a drug. It was made illegal because of its raw materials and uses for everything you basically have that is made from plastic or paddiny or stuffing in cars ,actually in ww2 if you did not grow hemp farmers were fined.


eating marijuana is not weak it is smarter the anyone drinking alcohol . marijuana is proven safer to your body then most common veggies. your comment is BS


you sound like a brainwashed dare program zombie!!


He thinks weed is ok.

[dannno]

You live in the projects or something? I think slipping an adult $10 bucks so he can buy you and your friends a six pack is a little bit easier then getting trying to find an 8 ball somewhere. My goal is protecting our my child first and foremost, having him grow up in a society free of junkies feeding off the system is part of that.

Lifting prohibition off alcohol didn't do anything to stop alcoholics, it just made more of them, legalizing narcotics wont stop addicts or do anything to decrease their numbers.

Prohibition turns sales over to criminals. Criminals are usually risk takers, and risk takers are generally younger.

It is easier for kids to go to their local drug dealer, who is also a kid at their school, than to find an adult to buy them alcohol.

Oh ya, the median home price in my town is > $1 million

[schiffstudent]

you are so far off base with everything you said you should be on mars ,get a clue


one fact here for you ,alcohol is far more dangerous then weed, as for weed ,eating weed is 100% safe. Stop watching reefer madness and educate yourself. If you have a 4yr degree then you wasted your money!


your probably one of those that believe that marijuana is a gateway drug? well your 100% wrong if you do. The gateway drug is alcohol and nicotine and government stats prove it, go look for yourself;)
the only danger of marijuana is ill-informed people and the laws against it!!! for your info marijuana was not made illegal because it was a drug. It was made illegal because of its raw materials and uses for everything you basically have that is made from plastic or padding in cars ,actually in WW2 if you did not grow hemp farmers were fined.


eating marijuana is not weak it is smarter the anyone drinking alcohol . marijuana is proven safer to your body then most common veggies. your comment is BS


sound like a brainwashed dare program zombie!!


you would have jesus arrested since he was annointed at birth by oils that contained cannabis oils.

LOL, I said pot should be legalized dumb shit, read through the posts.

[speciallyblend]

A teen could get just about any illegal drug they wanted in my high school's hallway, but getting alcohol or cigarettes was darn near impossible.

yep because it was regulated and removed from the black market, alcohol prohibition was a failure and of course the drug war is a failure as well.

common sense should prevail soon!!!!

[speciallyblend]

LOL, I said pot should be legalized dumb shit, read through the posts.

i saw that but your reasonings are insane;) dumbshit sorry for the name calling but i understand english . i wasn't arguing that point just the insane reasoning!

[surf]

The assumption that you would make society better is probably the dumbest argument I have ever heard. Those societies don't exist in the world for a reason, it never works, just like communism. Wow, I had no idea there will so many people on here that want all drugs legalized. The again, please someone answer what is Ron Paul's position on legalizing narcotics??


i didn't make that argument. what i said is that addiction rates have been constant w/ or w/o criminalization across all societies, and that the assumption (and forgive me for assuming that you are assuming something) that legalization would lead to a world of crackheads and heroin addicts is flawed.

i said it's about personal freedom, and i have a tough time reconciling that decriminalization will lead to more "real" crime i.e. theft, murder, etc.

[powerofreason]

You live in the projects or something? I think slipping an adult $10 bucks so he can buy you and your friends a six pack is a little bit easier then getting trying to find an 8 ball somewhere. My goal is protecting our my child first and foremost, having him grow up in a society free of junkies feeding off the system is part of that.

Lifting prohibition off alcohol didn't do anything to stop alcoholics, it just made more of them, legalizing narcotics wont stop addicts or do anything to decrease their numbers.

SAVE THE CHILDREN! :rolleyes:

[schiffstudent]

says the guy who cannot differentiate between either there and their or your and you're, but whatever man, i'm sure you've got it all figured out.

Thank you Mavis Beacon Teaches Typing, I do have it figured out now :rolleyes:

[dannno]

i didn't make that argument. what i said is that addiction rates have been constant w/ or w/o criminalization across all societies, and that the assumption (and forgive me for assuming that you are assuming something) that legalization would lead to a world of crackheads and heroin addicts is flawed.

i said it's about personal freedom, and i have a tough time reconciling that decriminalization will lead to more "real" crime i.e. theft, murder, etc.

Yep, this pretty much sums it up. The drug war creates more problems than it solves, just like all government interference in the marketplace. I believe the real Schiff has something to say on that.

[speciallyblend]

You live in the projects or something? I think slipping an adult $10 bucks so he can buy you and your friends a six pack is a little bit easier then getting trying to find an 8 ball somewhere. My goal is protecting our my child first and foremost, having him grow up in a society free of junkies feeding off the system is part of that.

Lifting prohibition off alcohol didn't do anything to stop alcoholics, it just made more of them, legalizing narcotics wont stop addicts or do anything to decrease their numbers.

do you have per capita stats on this? i was curious?


on the decrease numbers? really ? you believe that? . i suggest you go check the stats on amsterdam and the stats prove the opposite of what you say!

there are less marijuana users per capita where it is legal(amsterdam) then in the us per capita where it is illegal!


THE FINAL WORD ON DRUG ADDICTION, it is a medical problem not a law enforcement problem unless they committed an actual crime against someone else!

[gls]

Schiffstudent, if you're so worried about your kid becoming a drug addict, maybe you should try actually embracing your parental duties instead of delegating them to the state. BTW, like anyone who believes in liberty, Peter Schiff is opposed to the War on Drugs.

[powerofreason]

Schiffstudent, if you're so worried about your kid becoming a drug addict, maybe you should try actually embracing your parental duties instead of delegating them to the state. BTW, like anyone who believes in liberty, Peter Schiff is opposed to the War on Drugs.

The ultimate irony of this thread.

[gls]

the assumption that legalization would lead to a world of crackheads and heroin addicts is flawed.


Seriously flawed.


Zogby Poll: 99 Percent Wouldn't Use Hard Drugs If They Were Legalized (http://stopthedrugwar.org/chronicle_blog/2007/dec/05/poll_hard_drug_legalization_little_use)

[speciallyblend]

Yep, this pretty much sums it up. The drug war creates more problems than it solves, just like all government interference in the marketplace. I believe the real Schiff has something to say on that.

enuff said;)

[speciallyblend]

He thinks weed is ok.

i know but his reasoning was on mars:)

[AJ Antimony]

Obviously, CNN's behind the scenes staff are reading the Liberty Forrest/RPF. Ventura, and Liberty forums...

Maybe they have some, SOME, decent people there!

No. Europe has easier drug laws than the US and we know how US lawmakers for some reason LOVE copying whatever Europe does.

[speciallyblend]

No. Europe has easier drug laws than the US and we know how US lawmakers for some reason LOVE copying whatever Europe does.

i hear you but to be honest . The only people who changed the laws in Colorado were , WE THE PEOPLE who forced the lawmakers to change the law:) i do not give one bit of credit to the europeans. This time ALL THE CREDIT GOES TO COLORADO CITIZENS,CALIFORNIA CITIZENS and AMERICANS ACROSS THIS COUNTRY. WHO ARE DAM WELL FIGHTING BACK:),

SAFER http://www.saferchoice.org/

[schiffstudent]

Schiffstudent, if you're so worried about your kid becoming a drug addict, maybe you should try actually embracing your parental duties instead of delegating them to the state. BTW, like anyone who believes in liberty, Peter Schiff is opposed to the War on Drugs.

I never heard Schiff say that, please give me a clip or info on that. I do remember him giving an analogy about if a teacher leaves alcohol in the class room and goes out and comes back and all the kids are drunk you don't blame the kids, you blame the teacher. I feel you can use the same analogy in my opinion about the government legalizing all narcotics. I just think that a society is better off without those hard substances in the environment.

I do embrace my parental duties very well, I don't have a worry about him doing drugs or being drawn into that culture. Nor do I want the "state" to have any influence on his development. You won't have a prosperous country that legalizes all drugs, it's a pipe dream. If it were true it would have been done by now.

Ok, but lets say all drugs are legalized. Anything you get at the pharmacy legalized. Meth legalized. Is there at least a usage age??

[powerofreason]

I never heard Schiff say that, please give me a clip or info on that. I do remember him giving an analogy about if a teacher leaves alcohol in the class room and goes out and comes back and all the kids are drunk you don't blame the kids, you blame the teacher. I feel you can use the same analogy in my opinion about the government legalizing all narcotics. I just think that a society is better off without those hard substances in the environment.

I do embrace my parental duties very well, I don't have a worry about him doing drugs or being drawn into that culture. Nor do I want the "state" to have any influence on his development. You won't have a prosperous country that legalizes all drugs, it's a pipe dream. If it were true it would have been done by now.

Ok, but lets say all drugs are legalized. Anything you get at the pharmacy legalized. Meth legalized. Is there at least a usage age??

No. And you still appear to believe that making drugs illegal makes them go away.

[kathy88]

Legalization and decriminilization are seperate issues.

[powerofreason]

Kids need to live by the rules their parents set for them as a condition of being cared for. If a parent doesn't want his kid to use drugs then he can't. If a kid leaves his parents (in a free society) he/she is free to do whatever, so long as he/she doesn't harm other people or their property.

[schiffstudent]

No. And you still appear to believe that making drugs illegal makes them go away.

No? No minimum usage age for any and all drugs? 21? 18? 16?

[powerofreason]

No? No minimum usage age for any and all drugs? 21? 18? 16?

Set by who? The pharmacist/seller can set any age he/she wants.

[schiffstudent]

If a kid leaves his parents (in a free society) he/she is free to do whatever, so long as he/she doesn't harm other people or their property.

So it that case there is no need to have a guardian anymore?? From the day we are born we are just "free citizens" right?

[schiffstudent]

Set by who? The pharmacist/seller can set any age he/she wants.

Well good, I thought for a moment that the pharmacist/seller could be restricted from doing commerce with whomever they wanted.

[powerofreason]

So it that case there is no need to have a guardian anymore?? From the day we are born we are just "free citizens" right?

Who gets to determine whether someone needs a guardian? If parents are allowed to keep their children on their property against the will of that person thats essentially slavery. Which is the alternative. I think its safe to assume that kids that leave the house too young (in a free society) will come back.

[powerofreason]

Well good, I thought for a moment that the pharmacist/seller could be restricted from doing commerce with whomever they wanted.

Not morally, no.

[ronpaulhawaii]

So it that case there is no need to have a guardian anymore?? From the day we are born we are just "free citizens" right?

It seems your entire position is singing the praises of the nanny state. Wassup wit dat?

What we are concerned with is ending the federal "War on Drugs". States and communities can do as they will.

Your arguments are absurd.

[schiffstudent]

It seems your entire position is singing the praises of the nanny state. Wassup wit dat?

Guardian, as in a parent. Now you guys are going to advocate parents for children are infringing on the child's rights?? :D HA! I give up!

Anyways Mr. Paul would disagree with you on this one:

“All drugs should be decriminalized. Drugs should be distributed by any adult to other adults. There should be no controls on production, supply or purchase for adults.”

[speciallyblend]

So it that case there is no need to have a guardian anymore?? From the day we are born we are just "free citizens" right?

i think he is basically saying it is your job as a parent not the governments!

and actually at 18 your a free citizen from your parents,unless you runaway earlier!

[schiffstudent]

Ok here is another aspect of a legalized society. Say I'm an employer and I don't want a heroine addict working for me, can I discriminate who I hire or fire based on if they are a user or not? Or now because it is legal there is nothing I can do?

[powerofreason]

Ok here is another aspect of a legalized society. Say I'm an employer and I don't want a heroine addict working for me, can I discriminate who I hire or fire based on if they are a user or not? Or now because it is legal there is nothing I can do?

Of course you can discriminate. You can choose not to hire people for any reason including age, race, sex, habits, whatever.

Edit: In a free society. Govt does all kinds of screwy things, no one can guess what they'll do next.

[RSLudlum]

Ok here is another aspect of a legalized society. Say I'm an employer and I don't want a heroine addict working for me, can I discriminate who I hire or fire based on if they are a user or not? Or now because it is legal there is nothing I can do?

It's your business/property. You can decide if you want to employ based on their perfomance or decline due to the possibility of their use exposing you to a higher liability. It's up to you.

[speciallyblend]

Ok here is another aspect of a legalized society. Say I'm an employer and I don't want a heroine addict working for me, can I discriminate who I hire or fire based on if they are a user or not? Or now because it is legal there is nothing I can do?

you have the right to hire and fire any employee for tardiness etc etc or whatever reason you make up. you have the right to fire anyone who shows to work under the influence of any drug.unless they have a medical card but i do not know any medical cures that are cured by heroine or helped by heroine. most heroine addicts get fired for not showing to work. so im not sure what your saying you cannot do?

[speciallyblend]

I never heard Schiff say that, please give me a clip or info on that. I do remember him giving an analogy about if a teacher leaves alcohol in the class room and goes out and comes back and all the kids are drunk you don't blame the kids, you blame the teacher. I feel you can use the same analogy in my opinion about the government legalizing all narcotics. I just think that a society is better off without those hard substances in the environment.

I do embrace my parental duties very well, I don't have a worry about him doing drugs or being drawn into that culture. Nor do I want the "state" to have any influence on his development. You won't have a prosperous country that legalizes all drugs, it's a pipe dream. If it were true it would have been done by now.

Ok, but lets say all drugs are legalized. Anything you get at the pharmacy legalized. Meth legalized. Is there at least a usage age??

did you know more folks are killed by legal drugs then the combined amount of illegal drugs?

[schiffstudent]

Of course you can discriminate. You can choose not to hire people for any reason including age, race, sex, habits, whatever.

Edit: In a free society. Govt does all kinds of screwy things, no one can guess what they'll do next.

Excellent! I never did like those pesky Federal Equal Employment Opportunity (EEO) Laws. It made all of our air hostesses fat and old.

[powerofreason]

Excellent! I never did like those pesky Federal Equal Employment Opportunity (EEO) Laws. It made all of our air hostesses fat and old.

Thats why I added in a free society.

durr

[schiffstudent]

did you know more folks are killed by legal drugs then the combined amount of illegal drugs?

I agree. Look at how many pharmaceutical's throughout in the last few decades have left people's liver dysfunctional after taking them for years. But then again they took them because they thought they needed them not because their body was hooked on it.

[powerofreason]

I agree. Look at how many pharmaceutical's throughout in the last few decades have left people's liver dysfunctional after taking them for years. But then again they took them because they thought they needed them not because their body was hooked on it.

Why don't you just stop making excuses to use the State to commit acts of violence for you in order to control other people and say all drugs should be legal?

[ronpaulhawaii]

Guardian, as in a parent. Now you guys are going to advocate parents for children are infringing on the child's rights?? :D HA! I give up!

http://www.freethoughtpedia.com/images/Strawman-motivational.jpg



Anyways Mr. Paul would disagree with you on this one:

“All drugs should be decriminalized. Drugs should be distributed by any adult to other adults. There should be no controls on production, supply or purchase for adults.”

http://www.jimpryor.net/teaching/vocab/strawman.png

Here are parts where you give the nanny state credit that most people give common sense and instinct


...I got to believe though that I wouldn't be as accomplished I as I am right now without [The War on Drugs].


... As for me, yes there was a time where if I had an endless supply of coke I could have messed my life up...

What you are saying is that you are glad the state saved you from yourself because you consider yourself too weak to resist temptation and too dumb to realize when you are harming yourself.

Here is where you seem to hint that a nanny state should do the job of parenting


Do you have kids?

Then you say something completely absurd about historical drug use. Opium and cannabis have been used for over 6000 years.


It's hard to keep up with you guys. Most people had no knowledge of drugs before the 1930's, other than opium there was just alcohol that was forbidden. My point is that today, give me a country, a society that has a complete legalization of all drugs?
I don't know of any, and don't say Holland, hard drugs there are illegal.

Name any country with heavy controls and no addicts...


...My goal is protecting our my child first and foremost, ...

Good on ya, unfortunately the "War on Drugs" makes the world your child is growing up in a much more dangerous place.

[RSLudlum]

they took them because they thought they needed them not because their body was hooked on it.

and because those drugs had the government's FDA stamp of approval on it and many doctors are limited to prescribing 'regulated' drugs due to fear of legal action that's gotten entirely out of hand leading to higher cost of malpractice insurance.

[tribute_13]

Sheep like these ?

http://www.erowid.org/culture/characters/characters_drug_use.shtml

:rolleyes:

Bob Dole apparently od's on Viagra every now and then.

[tribute_13]

The War on Drugs is immoral. People learn best through negative experiences. I learned not to do drugs, certain kinds, through what I've witnessed my parents go through with lethal substances. It made me a stronger, more driven individual to make myself as productive as I can be so I don't end up the same way my parents did.

Kids who are told not to do something their whole life are eventually going to learn the hard way anyway so spending billions of dollars a year to combat the inevitable is a waste of time.

[MRoCkEd]

True freedom involves the freedom to make bad decisions too. Indeed, learning from mistakes is how humans grow.

[speciallyblend]

The War on Drugs is immoral. People learn best through negative experiences. I learned not to do drugs, certain kinds, through what I've witnessed my parents go through with lethal substances. It made me a stronger, more driven individual to make myself as productive as I can be so I don't end up the same way my parents did.

Kids who are told not to do something their whole life are eventually going to learn the hard way anyway so spending billions of dollars a year to combat the inevitable is a waste of time.

This has to be the oldest youngest person on RPF:) your starting to sound like my grandfather hehe:)

[schiffstudent]

What you are saying is that you are glad the state saved you from yourself because you consider yourself too weak to resist temptation and too dumb to realize when you are harming yourself.

Then you say something completely absurd about historical drug use. Opium and cannabis have been used for over 6000 years.

Name any country with heavy controls and no addicts...
.

No ultimately I didn't get more coke after my first and only binge in my life, I did have enough common sense to wake up and see it as an overall unpleasant drug experience, even though I could have gotten more. However that decision may have taken more time to come to if the price was super cheap and I could have gotten it from the local Wal-mart.

About drugs other than cannabis and opium (I know they have been used for thousands of years and I never said anything different) they weren't popular or well know before the 1930's. None knew what cocaine or heroine was, that's just a fact, ask any one still alive today.

Name any country with heavy controls and no addicts? China
Because they'll put a bullet in your head if messing around with narcotics there.

Tone it down a bit friend on the personal attacks, I still have an open mind about this legalization gig you want to see happen, I just not sure it's going to be as perfect as everyone here thinks it will be.

[powerofreason]

I wonder what a heroin commercial would look like in a free society? Who would it be marketed to the most? Cool to think about.

[olehounddog]

For pot and peyote no, anything else yes, because those substances grab hold of people's mind, can make them addicts and destroy them. What's Ron Paul's position on legalizing narcotics??


Here's an interview with Stossel

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vpgWAAmVwDM

[powerofreason]

No ultimately I didn't get more coke after my first and only binge in my life, I did have enough common sense to wake up and see it as an overall unpleasant drug experience, even though I could have gotten more. However that decision may have taken more time to come to if the price was super cheap and I could have gotten it from the local Wal-mart.

About drugs other than cannabis and opium (I know they have been used for thousands of years and I never said anything different) they weren't popular or well know before the 1930's. None knew what cocaine or heroine was, that's just a fact, ask any one still alive today.

Name any country with heavy controls and no addicts? China
Because they'll put a bullet in your head if messing around with narcotics there.

Tone it down a bit friend on the personal attacks, I still have an open mind about this legalization gig you want to see happen, I just not sure it's going to be as perfect as everyone here thinks it will be.

Uhh, I hate to break it to ya but there are heroin addicts in China. And farmers grow poppies near the mountains and smoke their own opium all the time. There is no enforcement there (where the farmers are).

[RSLudlum]

Name any country with heavy controls and no addicts? China
Because they'll put a bullet in your head if messing around with narcotics there.



Have you ever heard the phrase "Chasing the Dragon"? Can you guess the origin? I'll give you a hint: of Cantonese origin ;)

[schiffstudent]

Uhh, I hate to break it to ya but there are heroin addicts in China. And farmers grow poppies near the mountains and smoke their own opium all the time. There is no enforcement there (where the farmers are).

Compared to other countries addicts it's a pretty small number in China. I'm sure in the western provinces in the mountains there is no enforcement and yeah you have guys toking on some opium. But make no mistake about it, if your Chinese you know the consequences of narcotic possession in China, and it makes our laws look like a cakewalk. I have lived there and I have friends that are policemen in Beijing and Shijiazhuang that have told me some horrific stuff.

[ronpaulhawaii]

No ultimately I didn't get more coke after my first and only binge in my life, I did have enough common sense to wake up and see it as an overall unpleasant drug experience, even though I could have gotten more. However that decision may have taken more time to come to if the price was super cheap and I could have gotten it from the local Wal-mart.

It took Freud about 10 years to realize the negative effects of overindulgence in Cocaine. Seems he turned out alright even though he never did stop using.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sigmund_Freud#Cocaine


About drugs other than cannabis and opium (I know they have been used for thousands of years and I never said anything different) they weren't popular or well know before the 1930's. None knew what cocaine or heroine was, that's just a fact, ask any one still alive today.

I'm sorry, but saying "none knew..." is not a fact, and is in fact, erroneous. The historical record indicates that opiates and cocaine were quite popular in the 19th century. Morphine was isolated in the early 1800's, Cocaine mid-century.

Drug use has always been with us, here is some history:


Archaeological records indicate the presence of psychotropic plants and drug use in ancient civilizations as far back as early hominid species about 200 million years ago. Roughly 13,000 years ago, the inhabitants of Timor commonly used betel nut (Areca catechu), as did those in Thailand around 10,700 years ago. At the beginning of European colonialism, and perhaps for 40,000 years before that, Australian aborigines used nicotine from two different indigenous sources: pituri plant (Duboisia hopwoodii) and Nicotiana gossel. North and South Americans also used nicotine from their indigenous plants N. tabacum and N. rustica. Ethiopians and northern Africans were documented as having used an ephedrine-analog, khat (Catha edulis), before European colonization. Cocaine (Erythroxylum coca) was taken by Ecuadorians about 5,000 years ago and by the indigenous people of the western Andes almost 7,000 years ago. The substances were popularly administered through the buccal cavity within the cheek. Nicotine, cocaine, and ephedrine sources were first mixed with an alkali substance, most often wood or lime ash, creating a free base to facilitate diffusion of the drug into the blood stream. Alkali paraphernalia have been found throughout these regions and documented within the archaeological record. Although the buccal method is believed to be most standard method of drug administration, inhabitants of the Americas may have also administered substances nasally, rectally, and by smoking.

Prohibitions have never worked....


Name any country with heavy controls and no addicts? China
Because they'll put a bullet in your head if messing around with narcotics there.


* Myth: Drug abuse does not exist in Asia. Reality: Although Asian countries have strict penalties for drug abuse, significant drug problems are present. Best estimates state that there are more than 10 million drug abusers in China, especially in southern provinces.

...even in a totalitarian nightmare where they literally hold a gun to ones head.

Finally, please remember that the term "War on Drugs" refers to a federal program that most of us believe is a colossal mistake, for a multitude of reasons. The debate over responsible drug use, and state level regulations, do not apply here...

[RSLudlum]

Originally Posted by http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0QTQ/is_2_5/ai_n25004168
* Myth: Drug abuse does not exist in Asia. Reality: Although Asian countries have strict penalties for drug abuse, significant drug problems are present. Best estimates state that there are more than 10 million drug abusers in China, especially in southern provinces.




and that number comes to roughly 1% of the population of China (~1 billion)

[schiffstudent]

The debate over responsible drug use, and state level regulations, do not apply here...

But what is responsible drug use when it comes to shooting up or smoking crack? I guess it's just from personal experience that I've known so many people destroy the lives of themselves and their family from that shit that it should never be readily available for consumption.

But say for example federal decriminalization for all drugs happened tomorrow and it was left up to the states to decide. Other than Cannabis, does anyone think that any state would go along with it? I could see Vegas legalizing it there, but where else?

[ronpaulhawaii]

But what is responsible drug use when it comes to shooting up or smoking crack? I guess it's just from personal experience that I've known so many people destroy the lives of themselves and their family from that shit that it should never be readily available for consumption.

Can you entertain the possibility that the reason many peoples lives are being destroyed is because drugs are illegal?


But say for example federal decriminalization for all drugs happened tomorrow and it was left up to the states to decide. Other than Cannabis, does anyone think that any state would go along with it? I could see Vegas legalizing it there, but where else?

The first thing that would happen, if the feds dropped the WoD, is the prison industry would be jetting in to DC, hat in hand, looking for a bail-out...

[tribute_13]

But what is responsible drug use when it comes to shooting up or smoking crack? I guess it's just from personal experience that I've known so many people destroy the lives of themselves and their family from that shit that it should never be readily available for consumption.

But say for example federal decriminalization for all drugs happened tomorrow and it was left up to the states to decide. Other than Cannabis, does anyone think that any state would go along with it? I could see Vegas legalizing it there, but where else?

I've witnessed first hand experiences with Crack Cocaine. Crack is not only a dangerous unnatural product, its known to be one of the most emotionally and psyche-altering drugs known to ever be made. My mother's priorities in life changed overnight because of exposure to this drug. Her kids no longer meant anything, the only thing she wanted was any and every way to make money which involved her rarely being home. She would show up one or two days out of the week to sleep and then she'd be back on the streets. Its a sad very degrading way to live. However, she's learned the hard way and I've learned through experience that these drugs are dangerous.

However I think drugs like Cannabis and Cocaine, naturally occuring drugs should be allowed. However artificially produced drugs like Crystal Meth and Crack shouldn't be legalized because of the SEVERE mental repercussions. My mom has still never fully recovered. She's smoked weed and grown weed her whole life and could manage a household and raise two kids on minimum wage but the second she started taking certain lethal drugs that's when my family went through hell. Take it from a key eyewitness that artificially created drugs such as Meth and Crack should be illegal. They are the real culprits behind drug related problems. Everyone has the freedom of choice to choose but I never had a choice when I went through it.

POINT: Although I had my personal experiences, I still believe firmly, that the Drug War causes more bad than good. Its easier to regulate a legal substance than an illegal, untraceable one. I think that if certain drugs are available legally as much much healthier and more natural alternatives to lethal street drugs then it would reduce the rate of usage of the latter.

I agree entirely Schiff, people can choose to make their own mistakes. Its the best way to learn and the best way to ensure long lasting morals. But there are those certain cases where you can want to learn from a mistake all you want, but its near damn impossible to fix the mistake once its made.

Also to RPH, "Can you entertain the possibility that the reason many peoples lives are being destroyed is because drugs are illegal?"

It would depend on what type of drugs you would be referring to. I'm sure no one can benefit from the medicinal properties of "shooting up" or smoking crack.
Marijuana is scientifically proven to have more medicinal benefits than most approved medications but I wouldn't personally prescribe Crack or Meth to help someone with their cataracts. Obesity maybe ;)

[schiffstudent]

Can you entertain the possibility that the reason many peoples lives are being destroyed is because drugs are illegal?
The first thing that would happen, if the feds dropped the WoD, is the prison industry would be jetting in to DC, hat in hand, looking for a bail-out...

The incarceration aspect of this does indeed destroy lives of the people, I couldn't agree more. Can you agree on the possibility that those same drugs (not cannabis) could destroy a person through an actual physical addiction that took over every aspect of his or her life?

Prisons would take a well deserved hit after releasing thousands of people. But if most states kept the same drug enforcement laws is then is it really changing anything?

[RevolutionSD]

schiffstudent, put down the gun. your violent statist beliefs have no place here. we libertarians are opposed to the use of violence to solve society's problems, and that definitely includes the drug war. you seem to be in love with the idea of using the guns of government to point them at your fellow citizens just to get your way. that's the opposite of libertarianism my friend.

[schiffstudent]

schiffstudent, put down the gun. your violent statist beliefs have no place here. we libertarians are opposed to the use of violence to solve society's problems, and that definitely includes the drug war. you seem to be in love with the idea of using the guns of government to point them at your fellow citizens just to get your way. that's the opposite of libertarianism my friend.

:D haha, omg where in the hell did you see me advocating violence? My friends don't put words in my mouth, get your thumb out of your ass and read my posts.

[Danke]

:D haha, omg where in the hell did you see me advocating violence? My friends don't put words in my mouth, get your thumb out of your ass and read my posts.

You are against legalization of certain drugs, correct?

Are you for non enforcement of the illegal drugs then?

[schiffstudent]

You are against legalization of certain drugs, correct?

Are you for non enforcement of the illegal drugs then?

I've evolved to the point of what Ron Paul is saying, decriminalize it on a federal level and leave it up to the states, isn't that what everyone here agrees on as well??

[Danke]

I've evolved to the point of what Ron Paul is saying, decriminalize it on a federal level and leave it up to the states, isn't that what everyone here agrees on as well??

So you are advocating violence. Got it.

[schiffstudent]

So you are advocating violence. Got it.

Answer the question don't dodge it.

So if Paul was president, ended the WOD on a federal level and gave the say to the states, you wouldn't agree with Paul? Because some states wouldn't decriminalize it, and some would, that's a given.

[Danke]

Answer the question don't dodge it.

You're pretty thick.



So if Paul was president, ended the WOD on a federal level and gave the say to the states, you wouldn't agree with Paul? Because some states wouldn't decriminalize it, and some would, that's a given.

Did I bring up RP?

But I'll play your silly game. A president's role is not a governor's role. So if RP says what he will do as president in respecting state rights, you could name any number of subjects that he is personally against, but feels the federal government has no jurisdiction in. And as president, he would leave to the states.

[RevolutionSD]

:D haha, omg where in the hell did you see me advocating violence? My friends don't put words in my mouth, get your thumb out of your ass and read my posts.

When have you not advocated violence on this thread? You want the state to fight a so-called war on drugs. This is supporting violence no matter how much propaganda you sugar coat it with. Tell me, how do you fight a drug war without using state coercion and violence?

[RevolutionSD]

I've evolved to the point of what Ron Paul is saying, decriminalize it on a federal level and leave it up to the states, isn't that what everyone here agrees on as well??

No, I don't agree with this. I want drugs legal at all levels. Anything else is immoral and leads to more death and suffering.

[schiffstudent]

But I'll play your silly game. A president's role is not a governor's role. So if RP says what he will do as president in respecting state rights, you could name any number of subjects that he is personally against, but feels the federal government has no jurisdiction in. And as president, he would leave to the states.

Great, so because RP leaves it up to the states to mandate it, which I can agree on as well, I guess that makes me and him advocates of violence. Right?

[RevolutionSD]

Great, so because RP leaves it up to the states to mandate it, which I can agree on as well, I guess that makes me and him advocates of violence. Right?

Wait, are you now saying you're against the drug war? Which is it? The war on drugs is at the federal level.

[schiffstudent]

When have you not advocated violence on this thread? You want the state to fight a so-called war on drugs. This is supporting violence no matter how much propaganda you sugar coat it with. Tell me, how do you fight a drug war without using state coercion and violence?

Violence will be waiting for the ones that feel it's necessary to fight law enforcement on the issue I guess. You talk as if people will be lined up and shot in those states that don't legalize it.

[schiffstudent]

Wait, are you now saying you're against the drug war? Which is it? The war on drugs is at the federal level.

Read man, I agree with what Paul is saying, end the Federal War On Drugs, let the states vote and deal with it.

[Danke]

Great, so because RP leaves it up to the states to mandate it, which I can agree on as well, I guess that makes me and him advocates of violence. Right?

No, certainly not him. He just doesn't feel exceeding his constitutional powers as president and usurping state rights as something he should do. Sets a bad precedent. He is against abortion too, but doesn't feel it is a federal matter.

[Danke]

Read man, I agree with what Paul is saying, end the Federal War On Drugs, let the states vote and deal with it.

So if the states use violence to enforce drug laws, you are for it, right? I think we established this fact already. You were just too slow to catch on and kept bringing up RP and federal laws.

[schiffstudent]

So if the states use violence to enforce drug laws, you are for it, right? I think we established this fact already. You were just too slow to catch on and kept bringing up RP and federal laws.

Your just too daft to see that that I have the exact same attitude towards this as RP, but it's hard for you to accept. And what do you mean by this pansy violence, violence, violence talk? If there is a raid on your house for crack and your not hostile and unarmed how could that turn into a violent situation?

[Danke]

Your just too daft to see that that I have the exact same attitude towards this as RP, but it's hard for you to accept. And what do you mean by this pansy violence, violence, violence talk? If there is a raid on your house for crack and your not hostile and unarmed how could that turn into a violent situation?

It is "you're."

Try reading comprehension too while you're at it.

[schiffstudent]

It is "you're."

Try reading comprehension too while you're at it.

Are you really that incapable of a dialogue? I guess I'm just too violent :(

[ronpaulhawaii]

...

Also to RPH, "Can you entertain the possibility that the reason many peoples lives are being destroyed is because drugs are illegal?"

It would depend on what type of drugs you would be referring to. I'm sure no one can benefit from the medicinal properties of "shooting up" or smoking crack.
Marijuana is scientifically proven to have more medicinal benefits than most approved medications but I wouldn't personally prescribe Crack or Meth to help someone with their cataracts. Obesity maybe ;)

Seeing kids going through your experience is what started waking me up. What I found was that corruption rules the drug trade and people are expecting foxes to watch the henhouse.

I don't buy into the medicinal framing of the debate. It insinuates that everyone who may choose to indulge is "sick" The fact remains that drugs have been used freely for millenia, and society has progressed just fine. The medicinal framing of the debate will only prolong the lies.


The incarceration aspect of this does indeed destroy lives of the people, I couldn't agree more. Can you agree on the possibility that those same drugs (not cannabis) could destroy a person through an actual physical addiction that took over every aspect of his or her life?

Prisons would take a well deserved hit after releasing thousands of people. But if most states kept the same drug enforcement laws is then is it really changing anything?

It is not just the incarceration aspect. If a parent repeats the scare tactic lies of the drug-warriors, they become a liar (or an idiot) in the eyes of their child. Consider the ramifications of that... Any child who listens to the propoganda and discovers he is being lied to about pot, will naturally assume he is been lied to about other things, and down the rabbit hole they go. Consider that!

Then you have people like me, who find out how deep the drug trade's corruption goes and become so cynical they drop out. I spent over two decades with a backpack and no hope for humanity, caused directly by the hypocrisy of the authorities who wanted to teach and protect me. Who knows what I would have been had I been able to stomach the lies...

Integrity Matters!!!

Yes, every person has strengths and weaknesses. Yes, for some that manifests in harmful addictions to intoxicants. As far as destroying every aspect of their lives, much of that is subjective; some hit bottom and find their true calling... The fact remains that communities have dealt with these weaknesses forever and centralized remote management has never worked for the benefit of the people.

[Danke]

Are you really that incapable of a dialogue? I guess I'm just too violent :(

Dialogue? How do I communicate with an alien? I don't speak your language.

No, with age I grown leery of the absurd.

You can't even see state sponsored violence as a bad thing against an individual who has harmed (potentially) no one but himself.

[dannno]

Great, so because RP leaves it up to the states to mandate it, which I can agree on as well, I guess that makes me and him advocates of violence. Right?

No, you didn't read my entire first statement about his stance. You read the first part and jizzed your pants and didn't read the second part. Go back, I promise it is there. That is probably why Danke gave you shit for your reading comprehension.

Ron Paul doesn't like the Federal Government telling states what to do on this matter because it is not in the constitution. However, on a personal level, he believes that these decisions should be left up to the individual, so on a state level he would want drugs to be legal.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IHB2I83_N_k

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MGGDVm4mmTo&feature=related


Do you get youtube?

[schiffstudent]

No, you didn't read my entire first statement about his stance. You read the first part and jizzed your pants and didn't read the second part. Go back, I promise it is there. That is probably why Danke gave you shit for your reading comprehension.

Ron Paul doesn't like the Federal Government telling states what to do on this matter because it is not in the constitution. However, on a personal level, he believes that these decisions should be left up to the individual, so on a state level he would want drugs to be legal.

Sorry I didn't read any of it so I didn't get the pleasure to jizz in my pants, but I did watch this John Stossel interview

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vpgWAAmVwDM

I think I have all the info I need on his stance but I would just like to hear some opinions on how it would evolve at the state level after the WOD is discontinued. Would there be a form of regulation and licensing like with alcohol on who could distribute and sell it?

[dannno]

Sorry I didn't read any of it so I didn't get the pleasure to jizz in my pants, but I did watch this John Stossel interview

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vpgWAAmVwDM

I think I have all the info I need on his stance but I would just like to hear some opinions on how it would evolve at the state level after the WOD is discontinued. Would there be a form of regulation and licensing like with alcohol on who could distribute and sell it?

Your states rights comment came within 2 about posts after my post on the topic about 7 hours ago.

The point is that each state can choose their own way and whichever state works out the best will be modeled by other states.

I hope you are clear that Ron Paul would like to see all drugs legalized. He is pro-life, but doesn't want to make abortions illegal at the Federal level. He wants the Federal Government out of it. Some people see this as contradictory, but of course it is not. His stances are not always one dimensional.

[schiffstudent]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IHB2I83_N_k

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MGGDVm4mmTo&feature=related


Do you get youtube?

Yes Danno I do get Youtube, thanks for the Morton Downy Jr. clip, very cool, I forgot how loud it was.

[schiffstudent]

The point is that each state can choose their own way and whichever state works out the best will be modeled by other states.

That's cool, but there are so many other variables that play into it. I think realistically the most anyone could hope for is legalization of Marijuana. However when the collapse comes there may not be a choice to continue the WOD, there won't be a way to fund it. ;)

[RevolutionSD]

Read man, I agree with what Paul is saying, end the Federal War On Drugs, let the states vote and deal with it.

So you want the states to carry out the war on drugs??
You're trying to have it both ways. Are you, in principle, for or against the war on drugs? I'm not asking you if you want states or federal goons or your local sheriff to use the guns, I'm asking you if you think violence at ANY level is a good way to stop people from using drugs.

[Scofield]

And what happens when it's legal? "oh, whoops, my bad. Sorry we ruined your life and broke up your family. Here have some free legal weed on us."

Go fuck yourselves. I'll smoke regardless of your god damn laws.-Scofield


And how silly is this concept? Because a couple of lawmakers decide to repeal some words on a piece of paper, something immediately goes from being wrong to not wrong.-mport1
---------

mport1 hit it dead on. Justice [law] derives from morality, it's the whole reason government was created in the first place. How can one tell me a bit of scripture determines what is right and what is wrong, and that as soon as that scripture changes, so does morality?

I can't believe the insanity we face in this country. It's enough to make a man vomit.

[ghengis86]

this is ridiculous. when did this forum turn down the shitter? arguing over a person's decision to ingest something as being legal or illegal? taking Ron Paul's word's as the Gospel? what the fuck?

I don't care that RP says it's a state's rights issue, i still think its incompatible with liberty to criminalize any drug use, federally or at the state level. you think since RP says its a state issue that he's all for state violence against drug users? you really need to have your head examined if that's the case.

why there is even a thread discussing the legality of illegal drugs (sic) and the merits of freedom and liberty vs tyranny and violence is ridiculous. criminalize all mind altering, potentially addictive and debilitaing substances (alcohol, cigarettes, cough syrup, pot, cocaine, glue, aresols, etc.) or criminalize none. can't have some of each without a contradiction in logic and liberty.

[shuffleproshaq]

this is ridiculous. when did this forum turn down the shitter? arguing over a person's decision to ingest something as being legal or illegal? taking Ron Paul's word's as the Gospel? what the fuck?

I don't care that RP says it's a state's rights issue, i still think its incompatible with liberty to criminalize any drug use, federally or at the state level. you think since RP says its a state issue that he's all for state violence against drug users? you really need to have your head examined if that's the case.

why there is even a thread discussing the legality of illegal drugs (sic) and the merits of freedom and liberty vs tyranny and violence is ridiculous. criminalize all mind altering, potentially addictive and debilitaing substances (alcohol, cigarettes, cough syrup, pot, cocaine, glue, aresols, etc.) or criminalize none. can't have some of each without a contradiction in logic and liberty.

qft

[RevolutionSD]

this is ridiculous. when did this forum turn down the shitter? arguing over a person's decision to ingest something as being legal or illegal? taking Ron Paul's word's as the Gospel? what the fuck?

I don't care that RP says it's a state's rights issue, i still think its incompatible with liberty to criminalize any drug use, federally or at the state level. you think since RP says its a state issue that he's all for state violence against drug users? you really need to have your head examined if that's the case.

why there is even a thread discussing the legality of illegal drugs (sic) and the merits of freedom and liberty vs tyranny and violence is ridiculous. criminalize all mind altering, potentially addictive and debilitaing substances (alcohol, cigarettes, cough syrup, pot, cocaine, glue, aresols, etc.) or criminalize none. can't have some of each without a contradiction in logic and liberty.

Amen. Schiffstudent is the only one arguing statist nonsense here.

[dannno]

He doesn't understand the multi-dimensional aspects of Ron Paul's positions and how they are compatible with a Republic.

[ghengis86]

Amen. Schiffstudent is the only one arguing statist nonsense here.

agreed

[Join The Paul Side]

Today on cnn with Rick Sanchez (usually can't stand him), he had an interview with an el paso councilmen on what would happen if we ended the war on drugs. Rick actually had a positive tone towards this idea. Could this be the beginning of the media push for the end of the war on drugs ?! Maybe they are finally waking up, the culture has changed majorly in the past 10 years. I know many adults, and accomplished individuals that smoke weed or do cocaine occasionally. Should be intresting to see considering how much money it generates per year, and how much our country needs capital at the moment.


Probably because Rick Sanchez and the people that work for CNN like to do drugs. ;)

I thought I saw some white dust in Wolf Blitzer's mustache. :rolleyes:

At any rate I agree. End the stupid war on drugs. :D

[RevolutionSD]

He doesn't understand the multi-dimensional aspects of Ron Paul's positions and how they are compatible with a Republic.

Actually, I don't either.

[powerofreason]

I'd like to point out that opioids are by far the best treatment for anxiety and depression yet a doctor would NEVER prescribe them for such a condition. They are _reluctantly_ prescribed for pain for their analgesic properties. Doctors seem to grudgingly admit that bit.

Instead, you get something like Paxil (paroxetine) which is an awful drug. Yet its pushed hard because you can't abuse it. If you want to gain 15 pounds, have suicidal thoughts, become an emotional zombie, and permanently damage your ability to produce serotinin over time than Paxil may be a good option for you.

Can we agree how utterly ridiculous the WoD has become? Lets not lie about and demonize drugs that get you high. Getting high is not a bad thing in and of itself. Addiction is not a bad thing in and of itself. Addiction to a drug that you really need is not a bad thing. It can become a bad thing, for sure.

All drugs ought to be legal in a free society, for both moral and practical reasons. Period.

[Vote Waterman 2028]

Appreciate all the comments fellow ron paul supporters. Although this topic has gone astray at somepoints in the last few pages. It has been interesting to read all of your opinions. I've noticed a lot of attacks on Shiffstudents remarks towards drug policy in the US. Although he/she is not well educated on drug policy in the US or worldwide he/she is correct that hard drugs do ruin lives, but it does depend on the person. As it does with alcohol and other substances. Personally i would not be okay with legalizing heroin, meth, or other exteremely addictive drugs. Although i believe people should have the right to put what they choose in there body as long as they dont harm others, i have seen meth addicts and that drug destroys people, everyone i have known. So although we all believe in liberty, and the right to make the choices, some drugs might be better left illegal. Personally i would only advise legalizing natural drugs/stimulants, but its a slippery slope.

[MRoCkEd]

Personally i would not be okay with legalizing heroin, meth, or other exteremely addictive drugs. Although i believe people should have the right to put what they choose in there body as long as they dont harm others

So although we all believe in liberty, and the right to make the choices, some drugs might be better left illegal.
http://www.condoroptions.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/03/contradiction.jpg

http://4simpsons.files.wordpress.com/2007/02/contradiction.jpg

[Vote Waterman 2028]

^^^ haha dont you just love contradictions ?

its a tough subject. Because i think people should be able to make the choices on there own, but at the same time its hard to let myself think that its okay to just let people do meth, considering how deadly it is, and how few people are responsible with drugs. This maybe that i would probably abuse it myself.

[ghengis86]

Appreciate all the comments fellow ron paul supporters. Although this topic has gone astray at somepoints in the last few pages. It has been interesting to read all of your opinions. I've noticed a lot of attacks on Shiffstudents remarks towards drug policy in the US. Although he/she is not well educated on drug policy in the US or worldwide he/she is correct that hard drugs do ruin lives, but it does depend on the person. As it does with alcohol and other substances. Personally i would not be okay with legalizing heroin, meth, or other exteremely addictive drugs. Although i believe people should have the right to put what they choose in there body as long as they dont harm others, i have seen meth addicts and that drug destroys people, everyone i have known. So although we all believe in liberty, and the right to make the choices, some drugs might be better left illegal. Personally i would only advise legalizing natural drugs/stimulants, but its a slippery slope.

you have got to be kidding me...

this thread =======> Fails

[ghengis86]

^^^ haha dont you just love contradictions ?

its a tough subject. Because i think people should be able to make the choices on there own, but at the same time its hard to let myself think that its okay to just let people do meth, considering how deadly it is, and how few people are responsible with drugs. This maybe that i would probably abuse it myself.

no, this is actually a very easy subject compared to other issues. every person is free to ingest whatever they like as long as they don't hurt person or property. a crack head steals money for crack, prosecute him for stealing, not the crack. a criminal robs a bank out of greed, so should we prosecute him for his greed too?

you can't even type a sentence with out a logic fail.

[Vote Waterman 2028]

you have got to be kidding me...

this thread =======> Fails

You obviously just took out parts of my comments to make it look more contradicting, i said however that its different for every person, not everyone handles drugs the same way. And this was not what the thread was originally about, i was just interested in the fact the the MSM had a positive tone towards ending the war on drugs. This thread has failed though.

[ghengis86]

You obviously just took out parts of my comments to make it look more contradicting, i said however that its different for every person, not everyone handles drugs the same way. And this was not what the thread was originally about, i was just interested in the fact the the MSM had a positive tone towards ending the war on drugs. This thread has failed though.

at least you admit that you're contradictory

[ghengis86]

one eithers support liberty and freedom or they don't. simply as that. hard drugs can ruin lives; don't do them if you think they will ruin yours. why are you concerned with someone else? why is it your right to legislate what they can or cannot ingest? unless they casue injury to you, leave them the fuck alone. why is that so hard to understand for some all these suppose liberty supporters?

[MRoCkEd]

I think Tucker Carlson was right.
People are only half-libertarians. They like the idea of maximum freedom for themselves, but they don't want to allow others to do things they object to.

[ghengis86]

I think Tucker Carlson was right.
People are only half-libertarians. They like the idea of maximum freedom for themselves, but they don't want to allow others to do things they object to.

Bingo!