RP Will Legalize Drugs?

[mikelovesgod]

Medical marijuana I'm ok with. Will he legalize drugs? Someone let me know his position, I'm trying to research it myself.

[angelatc]

He's not really running on that platform. Philosophically speaking, he thinks those things should be left up to the individual states.

[Bradley in DC]

What the constitution allows at the FEDERAL level is very restricted (no authority for drug war at that level).

[cujothekitten]

I'm pretty sure he'll try to reduce federal funding for the drug war but I'm not sure he can really do much behind that without the approval of congress. If anything people in California will be able to ingest it without worrying about federal agents busting down their front door.

It's legal to acquire marijuana in California if you have a prescription but it's a federal crime so people still get arrested for it. It will probably become legal here in Chicago as well.

[mikelovesgod]

Ok... I just read up on Paul's stance on drugs and I'm now wavering on the guy. You cannot legalize insanity and anarchy. Institutionalized legality of things which can kill you easily is insane.

[ronpaulitician]

Ron Paul on the War on Drugs (http://www.counterpunch.org/paul1.html)


In the last 30 years, we have spent hundreds of billions of dollars on a failed war on drugs. This war has been used as an excuse to attack our liberties and privacy. It has been an excuse to undermine our financial privacy while promoting illegal searches and seizures with many innocent people losing their lives and property. Seizure and forfeiture have harmed a great number of innocent American citizens.

Another result of this unwise war has been the corruption of many law enforcement officials. It is well known that with the profit incentives so high, we are not even able to keep drugs out of our armed prisons. Making our whole society a prison would not bring success to this floundering war on drugs. Sinister motives of the profiteers and gangsters, along with prevailing public ignorance, keep this futile war going. Illegal and artificially high priced drugs drive the underworld to produce, sell and profit from this social depravity. Failure to recognize that drug addiction, like alcoholism, is a disease rather than a crime, encourage the drug warriors in efforts that have not and will not ever work. We learned the hard way about alcohol prohibition and crime, but we have not yet seriously considered it in the ongoing drug war.

Corruption associated with the drug dealers is endless. It has involved our police, the military, border guards and the judicial system. It has affected government policy and our own CIA. The artificially high profits from illegal drugs provide easy access to funds for rogue groups involved in fighting civil wars throughout the world. Ironically, opium sales by the Taliban and artificially high prices helped to finance their war against us. In spite of the incongruity, we rewarded the Taliban this spring with a huge cash payment for promises to eradicate some poppy fields. Sure.

For the first 140 years of our history, we had essentially no Federal war on drugs, and far fewer problems with drug addiction and related crimes was a consequence. In the past 30 years, even with the hundreds of millions of dollars spent on the drug war, little good has come of it. We have vacillated from efforts to stop the drugs at the source to severely punishing the users, yet nothing has improved. This war has been behind most big government policy powers of the last 30 years, with continual undermining of our civil liberties and personal privacy. Those who support the IRS's efforts to collect maximum revenues and root out the underground economy, have welcomed this intrusion, even if the drug underworld grows in size and influence.

The drug war encourages violence. Government violence against nonviolent users is notorious and has led to the unnecessary prison overpopulation. Innocent taxpayers are forced to pay for all this so-called justice. Our eradication project through spraying around the world, from Colombia to Afghanistan, breeds resentment because normal crops and good land can be severely damaged. Local populations perceive that the efforts and the profiteering remain somehow beneficial to our own agenda in these various countries.

Drug dealers and drug gangs are a consequence of our unwise approach to drug usage. Many innocent people are killed in the crossfire by the mob justice that this war generates. But just because the laws are unwise and have had unintended consequences, no excuses can ever be made for the monster who would kill and maim innocent people for illegal profits. But as the violent killers are removed from society, reconsideration of our drug laws ought to occur.

[cujothekitten]

Ok... I just read up on Paul's stance on drugs and I'm now wavering on the guy. You cannot legalize insanity and anarchy. Institutionalized legality of things which can kill you easily is insane.

Making drugs illegal isn't going to prevent people from taking them. The focus should be on prevention, rehabilitation and education not punishment. Probation is literally outlawing a chemical reaction that happens in your brain.

Also, marijuana can't kill you.

[ronpaulitician]

You cannot legalize insanity and anarchy.
You can't regulate it either. Some people will do stupid things. As long as they don't harm others, can we morally prevent them from doing those stupid things?

[mikelovesgod]

If he allows states to prosecute the issue I have no problem. But if his position is the legality of drugs I have severe problems with that. I was to work with people on drugs, some became friends and some are now dead at young ages.

The problem with the "war of drugs" is that the leaders of the country allow drug pushers to go free even though they know they are guilty and know where the drugs are. Watching the head of the CIA admit this changed my view that the problem wasn't the "war" but how the war is being fought, namely, with their eyes shut.

[specsaregood]

//

[james1906]

the only time drugs are mentioned in the constitution is the fact that it's written on hemp

[cujothekitten]

A consequence of the drug war:

‘No-Knock’ Searches Get People Killed

Last week, we were asking how police found themselves in the bedroom of a naked couple in Lancaster, Calif., in 2001, guns drawn.

This led to a discussion of the problem with "no-knock" – or even "shout-once-and-storm-in" – search warrants.

On Nov. 21 of last year, Atlanta police planted marijuana on Fabian Sheats, a "suspected street dealer." They told Sheats they would let him go if he "gave them something." Sheats obligingly lied that he had spotted a kilogram of cocaine nearby, giving them the address of the elderly spinster Miss Kathryn Johnston, who neither used nor dealt drugs, but who did live in fear of break-ins in her crime-infested neighborhood.

Police then lied to a judge, claiming they had actually purchased drugs at the Johnston house, acquired one of those once-rare "no-knock" warrants, and violently battered down the reinforced metal door of a private home where there were no drugs.

Miss Johnston fired a warning shot at the unknown people busting down her door. That bullet lodged in the roof of her porch, injuring no one. Police replied by firing 39 rounds at her, hitting her five times, and wounding each other with another five rounds – though they lied and said they’d been shot by Miss Johnston.

They then handcuffed the old woman as she bled to death on the floor, and searched her house. Finding no drugs, they planted three bags of marijuana.

Next day, the cops picked up one Alex White, an informant, advising him that they needed him to lie, saying that he had purchased cocaine at Johnston’s house. White refused, managed to escape, and went to the media with the story.

Last month, two of those officers pleaded guilty to manslaughter – in deals which helped them escape murder charges – and now face more than 10 years in prison, after authorities demonstrated they lied to get their warrant.

Greg Jones of the Atlanta FBI office said at a news conference that the FBI is investigating "additional allegations of corruption that Atlanta police officers may have engaged in similar conduct."

Fulton County district attorney Paul Howard said he has started to review hundreds of other cases involving Officers Jason Smith and Gregg Junnier; convictions may be overturned. Last week, Police Chief Richard Pennington transferred his entire narcotics squad to other duties, contending his department would review its policy on "no-knock" warrants and its use of confidential informants. That "review" and seven bucks will get you a fancy cup of coffee at Starbucks.

Officer Smith’s attorney, John Garland, said his client "was trained to lie by fellow officers to establish probable cause."

Meantime, a black man named Cory Maye was still sitting on death row in Mississippi, the last I heard, because he heard men trying to break into his Prentiss, Miss. home late at night in December of 2001, where he was alone with his 18-month-old baby daughter.

Mr. Maye, who had no criminal record, got the child down onto the floor and lay down beside her to protect her. When one of the men finally broke into the bedroom, Cory Maye shot and killed him.

The man was hit in the abdomen, just below his bulletproof vest, and died a short time later. It turns out the man who had failed to knock and identify himself before breaking in was a cop, who was really after suspects in the other half of the duplex where Cory Maye lived. Turns out the cop was the white son of the white chief of police. An all-white jury sentenced Cory Maye, who is black, to death for exercising his right to defend his locked home and family against violent invasion by an unknown intruder. The all-white jury took only a few hours to do so, at least one juror explaining he wanted to get home for supper.

The list of such abuses goes on and on – without even mentioning the dozens of innocent women and children who eventually died thanks to the bungled and totally unnecessary 1993 BATF "incredibly-no-knock" raid on the Branch Davidian Church in Waco, Texas, whose residents (including Wayne Martin, a black Harvard Law School graduate) had previously demonstrated they would cheerfully cooperate with any law enforcement officer who merely knocked at the door and asked to see their guns.

(At Waco, the agents shot a dog and her puppies in their outdoor pen before they even got to the front door. Agents in National Guard helicopters – their ban from such actions on U.S. soil bypassed by the simple expedient of filling out sworn and thoroughly laughable affidavits claiming there was a "meth lab" inside a Christian church full of women and children – shot down through the roof, killing a nursing mother inside as her infant played by her bedside. When the unarmed Rev. David Koresh opened the front door to say, "Wait a minute, there are women and children here, let’s talk," agents fired at him, hitting his unarmed father-in-law, who stood behind him. Later, agents couldn’t even remember who carried the warrant. No one even CLAIMED they tried to "serve" it.)

For a partial rundown, see "Overkill: The Rise of Paramilitary Police Raids in America" by Cato Institute analyst Radley Balko along with the accompanying "map of botched paramilitary raids."

Charles P. Garcia, in "The Knock and Announce Rule: A New Approach to the Destruction-of-Evidence Exception," 1993, reports: "In 1970, the Nixon administration declared a ‘War on Drugs.’ The Justice Department urged Congress to enact a comprehensive anti-drug strategy and suggested that a general ‘no-knock’ provision could constitutionally be added to aid in enforcement. ...

"The ‘no-knock’ experience lasted four years. ... During the four-year period when ‘no-knock’ warrants were issued, horror stories were legion. ... In an exhaustive eight-week investigation by The New York Times, consisting of interviews with victims of ‘no-knock’ raids, reporters found that ‘Innocent Americans around the country have been subject to dozens of mistaken, violent and often illegal police raids by local, state and Federal narcotics agents in search of illicit drugs and their dealers.’

"In Florida, complaints of police harassment during drug searches were so overwhelming that Legal Services of Greater Miami was unable to handle the caseload. In Virginia, a terror-stricken woman, a previous burglary victim, shot and killed a young police officer executing a ‘no-knock’ warrant as he burst into her bedroom in the middle of the night."

(Astonishingly, no prosecution resulted, so far as I’ve been able to learn. The old woman, waiting terrified behind her closed bedroom door, had repeatedly called out, "Who’s in my house?" As with Chief Pennington in Atlanta, the bereaved Virginia chief said he would "review" his department’s use of no-knock warrants.)

"In California," Mr. Garcia continues, "one father was shot through the head as he sat in a living room cradling his infant son. Both the woman and the man were totally innocent of any wrongdoing. The federal ‘no-knock’ warrants were so disruptive that Congress repealed them four years later ... once again making ‘no-knock’ searches illegal under the federal ‘knock-and-announce’ rule."

So: what were those L. A. sheriff’s deputies doing in that bedroom in Lancaster, Calif., forcing Max Rettele and Judy Sadler to crawl out of bed naked, pointing guns at their heads and screaming and not allowing them even to grab a sheet or blanket to cover their nakedness?

The African-American suspects – who had moved – were sought for "identity theft," not a violent crime. There was no suspected "stash" that could be flushed down a toilet.

So why didn’t police knock at that door at suppertime, allowing the clothed couple to come to the door and calmly read their warrant before inviting police in to look around and confirm that the three African-Americans that police sought no longer lived there?

"While the facts in this case are unusual, not to say humorous," chuckled the reliably pro-police-state Los Angeles Times in an editorial last week, "the bottom line is important: Even when police follow the law, pursuit of the guilty will sometimes inconvenience – and embarrass – the innocent."

Oh, ha ha. Naked in their own bedroom. A little embarrassment. A little inconvenience. Chuckle chuckle.

And if Max Rettele and Judy Sadler had been armed? If they had opened fire on those gun-brandishing home invaders – as the terrified innocent victims Kathryn Johnston and Cory Maye did? If both that innocent couple and one or two pumped-up L.A. County sheriff’s deputies had ended up dead on the bedroom floor that early morning, would the Times still find it all so amusing?
http://www.lewrockwell.com/suprynowicz/suprynowicz66.html

[mdh]

Ok... I just read up on Paul's stance on drugs and I'm now wavering on the guy. You cannot legalize insanity and anarchy. Institutionalized legality of things which can kill you easily is insane.

Many people die from driving recklessly, but the government allows us to keep cars and even maintains the roads for us on which most people die from driving recklessly. Lots of things can kill you. That's your choice. If you feel that it is the role of the government to force people to only do things that are entirely safe, then we're probably not going to have much luck trying to talk to you about this issue. If you can, however, see the role of government as protecting people from eachother and from invaders and from government itself, then we're on the same page!

I can say with some certainty that Dr. Paul would end the sort of foreign intervention that the drug war of the Clinton era was famous for being so public about, such as paramilitary actions in South America, etc.

[lbrtylvr]

I hope so. His analysis is spot on and it is very refreshing to see a presidential candidate voice some common sense when it comes to drug prohibition.

[ronpaulitician]

A consequence of the drug war:

‘No-Knock’ Searches Get People Killed

http://www.lewrockwell.com/suprynowicz/suprynowicz66.html
I think I saw that movie... Training Day, right?

[angelatc]

If he allows states to prosecute the issue I have no problem. But if his position is the legality of drugs I have severe problems with that. I was to work with people on drugs, some became friends and some are now dead at young ages.
.

I'm sorry for your losses. Bear in mind he is a medical doctor, so I'm sure he has some experience on the front lines as well.

I'm pretty sure he wouldn't condone people selling smack at bus stops, but on the other hand, the Constitution does not give the power to spend money on a drug war to the Federal government.

He would allow the States to control it.

[mesler]

Medical marijuana I'm ok with. Will he legalize drugs? Someone let me know his position, I'm trying to research it myself.

I have a cousin who died from drug overdose. My brother is attending programs to help him with his prior pain medicine addiction.

Please, tell me how drug laws keep people from hurting themselves?

Let me answer my own question. My cousin died from illegal drugs. My brother got hooked on legal drugs. For me, the answer is not legalization vs criminalization, the answer is simply education and family. The laws are just a waste of time and taxpayer dollars.

[mikelovesgod]

Drugs don't kill people? Go snort some coke some night and tell me it can't happen. Crack addicts go to incredible lengths to get money to get more. Heroin kills so many people on just one night, so does speed balls.

Do you want to see the rise of innocent deaths? Legalize drugs, allow Walmart to sell it, and let's see what happens. Many, many, many people won't do them simply because of the fear of getting arrested and it stops their curiosity. Watch how many people die in proportion to what we have now.

Anything which can effectively kill you on one night by an accident should be illegal. You can't OD on weed, and ODing on alcohol is incredibly difficult and very rarely causes death, but it certainly can happen with crack, coke and heroin. One night and you are dead. I don't want that situation to be a reality.

Want no drug problem? Follow Madagascar's policy: found dealing drugs you die. The real problem is the justice system allowing this while the ACLU destroying justice by playing the system, and the gov't not arresting people and shipments they know exist. My freaking brother was a dealer, the cops knew it, and never did a thing until he almost died. I used to work with drug addicts so I know how the system works and how the juridical system is handcuffed to the new insanity of false civil liberties that are perpetrated by ingenious lawyers who defend the guilty looking for loopholes while be funded by drug dollars.

That's the problem, not this pseudo war we are facing.

Freedom implies morality. We are not free to murder, we are not free to defamation, etc.. We are not free to allow the traffic of illegal substances that can easily destroy life and the ignorant and innocent must be protected. This is institionalized license and to pretend that it will kill the Afghan trade of opium, or stop the bad guys in alleys from the perpetuation of a black market is myopic and sophomoric logic.

[dude58677]

Here are two articles from Harry Browne(the first is an article on the dangers of the drug war, the second is an outline on how Ron Paul can shrink small government):

http://www.wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=23146

The Drug Warriors' biggest argument against medical marijuana is that it's only the opening wedge in a movement toward total legalization of drugs. So, supposedly, we have to "nip it in the bud" – in the words of Deputy Barney Fife, the nation's first Drug Czar.

What if the Drug Warriors are right?

What if legalizing medical marijuana turned out to be the first step on a journey that ended in the outright repeal of every drug law? What would America be like?

Understandably, many Americans fear that with no drug laws, we would have hundreds of thousands of addicts, crack babies, children trying drugs, and other evils. But that's what we have now.

Let's assume the worst

If all drugs were legal, addicts would no longer pay black-market prices to criminals for drugs of questionable and dangerous origin. They would get drugs produced by legitimate pharmaceutical companies and pay market prices. They would no longer die from buying toxic drugs, and they would no longer have to mug innocent people to support their habits.

If all drugs were legal, addicts could seek help by going to doctors – no longer afraid of being prosecuted for their medical problems.

If all drugs were legal, criminal drug dealers would no longer be on our streets. They couldn't compete with the low, free-market prices for drugs sold at pharmacies.

If all drugs were legal, criminal drug dealers would no longer prey upon our children – any more than distilleries and breweries try to infiltrate schools to hook kids on alcohol. When I grew up in Los Angeles in the 1940s, the worst schools were safer than L.A.'s best schools are today.

If all drugs were legal, our government would no longer be dispensing propaganda that makes children want to try the forbidden fruit.

Reducing street violence

If all drugs were legal, our prisons would be emptied of hundreds of thousands of non-violent people who have never done harm to anyone else. No longer would over-crowded prisons cause truly violent criminals to be free on early release and plea bargains to terrorize the rest of us.

If all drugs were legal, law-enforcement resources would be available to fight violent crime, instead of being used to chase people who may harm themselves but are no threat to us.

If all drugs were legal, much of the street violence would end – as it did when Alcohol Prohibition ended – because gangs of thugs would no longer be fighting over drug territories.

If all drugs were legal, police corruption would diminish, because criminals could no longer use black-market drug money to gain immunity by subverting weak policemen.

If all drugs were legal, the government could no longer use the Drug War as an excuse to tear up the Bill of Rights and pry into your bank account, strip-search you at an airport, tear your car apart, monitor your e-mail, or seize your property without even charging you with a crime.

Why do we know this?

Why do I think America would be like this if all drugs were legal?

Because that's the way it was before the drug laws were passed. Yes, there were people whose lives were destroyed by drugs then – just as some people today destroy their lives with drugs, alcohol, financial mistakes, or various character weaknesses – but far fewer people lost their lives to drugs when they were legal.

And America's streets were peaceful.

Has America changed since then? Of course it has. But cause-and-effect relationships don't change. Force still begets force. Government programs still lead to unintended and destructive consequences.

Re-legalizing drugs would put a stop to those destructive consequences – end the criminal black market, end the violence, end the incentive to hook children, and end the production of toxic drugs that kill people.

We have to quit being afraid of the unknown, and instead recognize what we do know – that the Drug War is doing enormous harm to society.

If we care about our children, if we care about our cities, if we care about our country, we have to end the insane War on Drugs.




http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=13247

On Wednesday, Joseph Farah told us what he would do if he were the new president. He focused mainly on whom he'd appoint to his cabinet, but I'd like to tell you what actions I'd take if I'd been elected president.

After my inaugural day, I'd probably spend little more than an hour a day in the Oval Office, because a busy president is a dangerous president. But for the very first day, I'd have an extremely long agenda.

On that first day in office, by executive order I would:


Pardon everyone who had been convicted on a federal, non-violent drug charge, order their immediate release, reunite them with their families, and restore all their civil rights. (Anyone convicted of using violence against someone else in a drug case would not qualify as "non-violent.")

Pardon everyone who had been convicted on any federal gun-control charge, tax-evasion charge, or any other victimless crime, order their immediate release, and restore all their civil rights.

I would empty the prisons of those who haven't harmed anyone else and make room for the violent criminals who are currently getting out on plea bargains and early release.
Following the issuance of the pardons:


I would announce a policy to penalize, dismiss, or even prosecute any federal employee who violated the Bill of Rights by treating you as guilty until proven innocent, by searching or seizing your property without due process of law, by treating you as a servant, or in any other way violating your rights as a sovereign American citizen.

I would immediately order that no federal asset forfeiture could occur unless the property's owner had been convicted by full due process. And I would initiate steps to make restitution to anyone whose property had been impounded, frozen, or seized by the federal government without a legal conviction. (Over 80 percent of such seizures occur when no one has even been charged with a crime.)

As commander in chief of the Armed Forces, I would immediately remove all American troops from foreign soil. Europe and Asia can pay for their own defense, and they can risk their own lives in their eternal squabbles. This would save billions of dollars a year in taxes, but -- more important -- it would make sure your sons and daughters never fight or die in someone else's war.

I would order everyone in the executive branch to stop harassing smokers, tobacco companies, successful computer companies, gun owners, gun manufacturers, alternative medicine suppliers, religious groups (whether respected or labeled as "cults"), investment companies, health-care providers, businessmen, or anyone else who's conducting his affairs peaceably.

I would end federal affirmative action, federal quotas, set-asides, preferential treatments, and other discriminatory practices of the federal government. Any previous president could have done this with a stroke of the pen. Do you wonder why none of them did?

And then I would break for lunch.
There's more ...
After lunch, I would begin the process of removing from the Federal Register the thousands and thousands of regulations and executive orders inserted there by previous presidents. In most cases these regulations give federal employees powers for which there is no constitutional authority.

I would call Office Depot and order a carload of pens -- to use to veto congressional bills that violate the Constitution or that spend more money than necessary for the constitutional functions of government.

I would send to Congress a budget that immediately cuts federal spending in half -- on its way to reducing the government to no larger than its constitutional size.

Congress would undoubtedly pass a larger budget and expect me to sign it. I wouldn't. I'd veto it.

Would Congress override my veto?

Maybe it would and maybe it wouldn't.

Even if Congress succeeded in passing bills over my veto, the battle finally would be joined. We finally would have something we haven't had in my lifetime -- a president standing up to Congress.

At long last, there would be two sides arguing in Washington -- one to increase government and one to cut it sharply -- instead of the current trivial debate over whether government should grow 5 percent a year or "only" 3 percent.

Just say no
No president in the past several decades has had the will, the determination, the courage to "just say no" to Congress.

No president in the past several decades has even tried to reduce the size of government. Any president who wanted to do so could have managed it -- even in the face of a hostile Congress.

No president since the 1950s has proposed a single budget that would reduce the size of the federal government. And when Congress has come back with even larger budgets, no president has vetoed them.

Every president who claimed to be against big government has had that veto at his disposal, but none thought enough of your freedom to use it.

As president, I would -- for the first time -- use that office on your behalf. I would say no to Congress. Whatever new program it wanted to spend money on, I would veto. Whatever new tax it wanted to impose, I would veto. Whatever new intrusion it wanted to make in your life, I would veto.

No deals. No excuses. No apologies. No regrets.

But I would do more than just defend what little freedom you have left today. I would go on the offensive. I wouldn't rest until the income tax was repealed, the federal government was so small you wouldn't worry about who was elected president, and you had control over your own money, your own freedom, your own life.

And when we achieved this, we'd have a celebration. Do you remember the German youths who tore down the Berlin Wall and sold pieces of it to us?

Well, we would tear down the IRS building and sell the pieces -- and use the proceeds to help IRS agents find honest work.

Do you think any of my plans would appeal to George W. Bush or Al Gore?

Not likely, is it?

So why are we worrying over which one of them will win the current legal mud-wrestling?

[X_805]

He would allow the States to control it.

And the states would be more efficient at controlling it.

I am actually against legalizing drugs, but I say let the states see what programs will suit them better. If one state's system seems to work better at making the overall population better, then I imagine other states will follow.

I think the state's are supposed to be miniature American experiments in society, all doing their own version of what they believe government should do. What works best will prevail.

[jimmyjamsslo]

here's the doctor's viewpoint on the ill-begotten war on drugs:



The War on Terror? It's As Bad As the War on Drugs (http://www.counterpunch.org/paul1.html)

hope that helps, jimmy

[angelatc]

Want no drug problem? Follow Madagascar's policy: found dealing drugs you die.

I don't believe the government should be allowed to kill it's citizens, either.

[ThePieSwindler]

Drugs don't kill people? Go snort some coke some night and tell me it can't happen. Crack addicts go to incredible lengths to get money to get more. Heroin kills so many people on just one night, so does speed balls.

Do you want to see the rise of innocent deaths? Legalize drugs, allow Walmart to sell it, and let's see what happens. Many, many, many people won't do them simply because of the fear of getting arrested and it stops their curiosity. Watch how many people die in proportion to what we have now.

Anything which can effectively kill you on one night by an accident should be illegal. You can't OD on weed, and ODing on alcohol is incredibly difficult and very rarely causes death, but it certainly can happen with crack, coke and heroin. One night and you are dead. I don't want that situation to be a reality.

Want no drug problem? Follow Madagascar's policy: found dealing drugs you die. The real problem is the justice system allowing this while the ACLU destroying justice by playing the system, and the gov't not arresting people and shipments they know exist. My freaking brother was a dealer, the cops knew it, and never did a thing until he almost died. I used to work with drug addicts so I know how the system works and how the juridical system is handcuffed to the new insanity of false civil liberties that are perpetrated by ingenious lawyers who defend the guilty looking for loopholes while be funded by drug dollars.

That's the problem, not this pseudo war we are facing.

Freedom implies morality. We are not free to murder, we are not free to defamation, etc.. We are not free to allow the traffic of illegal substances that can easily destroy life and the ignorant and innocent must be protected. This is institionalized license and to pretend that it will kill the Afghan trade of opium, or stop the bad guys in alleys from the perpetuation of a black market is myopic and sophomoric logic.

Ok, but Paul isnt saying that drugs should be LEGALIZED and sold commerically, just that the war on drugs should be halted. You're almost SUPPORTING his position by talking about the corruption related to drugs. Stopping the drug war is very different from legalizing drugs and allowing them to be sold commercially, and does not equate to full legalization of "hard" drugs. What paul is essentially saying is that the drug war is not working, it needs to be halted, and people need to take responsibilities for their actions. It is not the job of the federal government to regulate a war on drugs. That duty can be relegated to the states, and would probably be much, much more effective.

Note; by drugs i mean hard drugs. Marijuana should just be straight up legalized, as it is far less dangerous than alcohol.

[mika813]

Mike,
What God do you “love” that gives you moral judgment over others?

[specsaregood]

//

[Tin_Foil_Hat]

Anything which can effectively kill you on one night by an accident should be illegal.

Wow.

I guess we'll have to outlaw the majority of household products. :rolleyes:

[mdh]

Drugs don't kill people? Go snort some coke some night and tell me it can't happen.

OK. Go run your car into a tree at 60 miles per hour. Just because you can do that, and likely kill yourself, doesn't mean the government should outlaw cars.


Want no drug problem? Follow Madagascar's policy: found dealing drugs you die.

Shall we also follow the policies of other African nations? Perhaps stoning to death adulterous women? Seriously now...

[Phil M]

Just for the record, since the Netherlands legalized marijuana smoking pot has dramatically decreased.

[mdh]

Wow.

I guess we'll have to outlaw the majority of household products. :rolleyes:

I've been told that antifreeze tastes sweet, and is appealing to children. Always comes with a child-proof cap, too. Guess we need to outlaw it now, though, since it is known to be deadly. :(

[quickmike]

Legalizing drugs is really a non issue at this point. Think about it, when government is corrupt from the top on down, legalizing drugs is the last of our worries. Lets concentrate on the IRS, the FED, and nation building.......then we can worry about smaller issues like legalizing drugs. Besides, you need support from congress and senate for something like that, and at this point I dont think its in the cards. More important things to focus on.

Just my opinion,

Mike Q

[LibertyBelle]

Agree on legalizing marijuana. Alcohol is legal and people get into cars drunk all of the time. Prohibition didn't work for alcohol.

I guess you could say prohibition wouldn't work for harder drugs, too. Don't know what the best answer here is, except stop the federal 'war on drugs' and let the states handle it.

There are corrupt politicians, bureaucrats, and cops that are involved with drugs entering and being sold in this country. What do you do about that? Hard to have a war on drugs when the people that are supposed to be fighting it are involved with the problem itself. Corruption is ugly.

[mikelovesgod]

1st I never said making laws stop people, but it definitely slows things down. Take a 13 year old, never tried drugs, told drugs kill, but there is a curiosity there. He will more than likely never do hard drugs that kill just because they are illegal. Is this true 100% of the time? Never said, that it certainly slows down the progression of drug use.

2nd The argument that people are going to do it anyway does not negate the principle. People shouldn't get divorced for the good of the children yet they do it anyways. People shouldn't murder others, and police should just follow the law. Ok, bad things happen. But where in any book of true ethical principles does not negate the principle? Arguments of abuse don't negate principles of ethics.

3rd If drugs are legalized what do you think about your son or daughter at a young age found comatose or dead? It happens now, but the frequency is going to strike a lot closer to home than you imagine.

4th the Constitution said all men are will have "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness". When any substance that takes away life, destroys your liberty and compromises your will to choose become options than you destroy this fundamental understanding of liberty and how it is protected. Drugs enslave people and the public has the right to be defended. I'm big time small gov't, but you will be opening Pandora's Box to the amount of rehab centers, loss of performance in the work-force, and medical bills associated with drugs.

5th The "War on Drugs" is not a war being a waged. I've watched 2 CIA officials, one was the head of the CIA (who stepped down precisely because of this insanity) admit he knew what was being shipped when it was coming. The war of drugs is nothing more than a pretense for a police state.
Here's a good video, but I've seen so much more:
http://youtube.com/watch?v=0z6nY3ySWrk

So it's not the fight, it's the lack of fight to make a police state. It still does not negate the necessity to stop anarchy or the lack of order.

6th Dr. Paul's article about the war on doctors is ok within it's sphere of pain prescriptions, but we are talking about the war on innocent that will be wiped out.

7th Police who break the law does not negate the principles of ethics.

Sorry, but I don't buy it. I'll still stick with RP, but this is wrong, just wrong. Laws should not be repealed because of gov't corruption. Truth isn't error because the person or organization who holds it doesn't live up to it.

[n664dc]

Legalizing drugs is really a non issue at this point. Think about it, when government is corrupt from the top on down, legalizing drugs is the last of our worries. Lets concentrate on the IRS, the FED, and nation building.......then we can worry about smaller issues like legalizing drugs. Besides, you need support from congress and senate for something like that, and at this point I dont think its in the cards. More important things to focus on.

Just my opinion,

Mike Q

Hear! Hear!


2nd The argument that people are going to do it anyway does not negate the principle. People shouldn't get divorced for the good of the children yet they do it anyways. People shouldn't murder others, and police should just follow the law. Ok, bad things happen. But where in any book of true ethical principles does not negate the principle? Arguments of abuse don't negate principles of ethics.
The job of the Prez is to enforce the laws... if one can't enforce the laws, or enforcing the laws isn't effective, what good is it to have it soley due to principle?

[cujothekitten]

Drugs don't kill people? Go snort some coke some night and tell me it can't happen. Crack addicts go to incredible lengths to get money to get more. Heroin kills so many people on just one night, so does speed balls.

Well I have. I've done cocaine, LSD, marijuana, smoked cigarettes and used to be addicted to speed. I understand it can kill but I think everyone’s point is that lots of things can kill... Including alcohol.


Do you want to see the rise of innocent deaths? Legalize drugs, allow Walmart to sell it, and let's see what happens. Many, many, many people won't do them simply because of the fear of getting arrested and it stops their curiosity. Watch how many people die in proportion to what we have now.

Wal-Mart does sell drugs now you just don't know about them. Robitussin, when taken in adequate amounts, is probably the most intense trip someone can have. Nitrous is also widely available. If you think your kids don't know about these drugs you're naive. If you think your kids can't get a hold of any drug (legal or otherwise) you're being naive.

I don't think anyone is saying cocaine should be sold on the shelves at Wal-Mart; they're talking about strict regulation that is only available to adults. It's safer to produce drugs that are clean then have them home made that contain rat poison.


Anything which can effectively kill you on one night by an accident should be illegal. You can't OD on weed, and ODing on alcohol is incredibly difficult and very rarely causes death, but it certainly can happen with crack, coke and heroin. One night and you are dead. I don't want that situation to be a reality.

With all due respect I think you're fairly ignorant of the amount of OD's that happen a year from one night of partying with beer.


Want no drug problem? Follow Madagascar's policy: found dealing drugs you die.

So you want to prevent death by overdose by killing people found with illegal drugs?! OMG, that's horrible! That is really an astonishing statement.


I used to work with drug addicts so I know how the system works and how the juridical system is handcuffed to the new insanity of false civil liberties that are perpetrated by ingenious lawyers who defend the guilty looking for loopholes while be funded by drug dollars.

What false civil liberties would those be?


Freedom implies morality. We are not free to murder, we are not free to defamation, etc.. We are not free to allow the traffic of illegal substances that can easily destroy life and the ignorant and innocent must be protected. This is institionalized license and to pretend that it will kill the Afghan trade of opium, or stop the bad guys in alleys from the perpetuation of a black market is myopic and sophomoric logic.

No, freedom is:
1. the state of being free or at liberty rather than in confinement or under physical restraint: He won his freedom after a retrial.
2. exemption from external control, interference, regulation, etc.
3. the power to determine action without restraint.
4. political or national independence.
5. personal liberty, as opposed to bondage or slavery: a slave who bought his freedom.
6. exemption from the presence of anything specified (usually fol. by from): freedom from fear.
7. the absence of or release from ties, obligations, etc.
8. ease or facility of movement or action: to enjoy the freedom of living in the country.
9. frankness of manner or speech.
10. general exemption or immunity: freedom from taxation.
11. the absence of ceremony or reserve.
12. a liberty taken.
13. a particular immunity or privilege enjoyed, as by a city or corporation: freedom to levy taxes.
14. civil liberty, as opposed to subjection to an arbitrary or despotic government.
15. the right to enjoy all the privileges or special rights of citizenship, membership, etc., in a community or the like.
16. the right to frequent, enjoy, or use at will: to have the freedom of a friend's library.
17. Philosophy. the power to exercise choice and make decisions without constraint from within or without; autonomy; self-determination. Compare necessity (def. 7).

We don't murder because we protect freedom... when you kill it takes away freedom to live
We don't steal because we protect freedom... when you steal it takes away freedom to own property

[X_805]

Agree on legalizing marijuana. Alcohol is legal and people get into cars drunk all of the time. Prohibition didn't work for alcohol.

At least prohibition was legal even if it didn't work. They actually amended the Constitution instead of going around it. If the people really want federal authority with drugs, pursue it with an amendment. I mean, the government probably tries to justify it with the commerce clause, but "among" does not mean "within".

[Hamburglar]

Here's an interesting video about the war on drugs from the stand point of a leading economist and great thinker of our time, someone who I know Dr. Paul has great respect for aswell: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Se_TJzB9-z0

[mdh]

1st I never said making laws stop people, but it definitely slows things down. Take a 13 year old, never tried drugs, told drugs kill, but there is a curiosity there. He will more than likely never do hard drugs that kill just because they are illegal. Is this true 100% of the time? Never said, that it certainly slows down the progression of drug use.

The assertion that laws slow things down is just bogus. Have you ever met a 13 year old? Have you ever been 13? Most kids do stuff just to rebel, without any real concern for what the action even is, just for the thrill of violating some arbitrary authority's rules!


2nd The argument that people are going to do it anyway does not negate the principle. People shouldn't get divorced for the good of the children yet they do it anyways. People shouldn't murder others, and police should just follow the law. Ok, bad things happen. But where in any book of true ethical principles does not negate the principle? Arguments of abuse don't negate principles of ethics.

What's the principle here, though? That people should never be allowed to do anything that might be dangerous? OK, criminalize automobiles and antifreeze and drain cleaner, then we can talk about cocaine, marijuana, etc.


3rd If drugs are legalized what do you think about your son or daughter at a young age found comatose or dead? It happens now, but the frequency is going to strike a lot closer to home than you imagine.

Same as I think about if they aren't decriminalized/legalized! I strongly disagree with the latter statement here, I believe that bringing drug use and experimentation into the open and out of the shadows will foster responsible use, rather than accidental abuses that lead to these sorts of situations including fatalities.


4th the Constitution said all men are will have "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness". When any substance that takes away life, destroys your liberty and compromises your will to choose become options than you destroy this fundamental understanding of liberty and how it is protected. Drugs enslave people and the public has the right to be defended. I'm big time small gov't, but you will be opening Pandora's Box to the amount of rehab centers, loss of performance in the work-force, and medical bills associated with drugs.

Whew, this is just such a misguided statement, and a rash misinterpretation of the intent of the founding fathers. But then, there were no criminalized narcotics in 1776.


5th The "War on Drugs" is not a war being a waged. I've watched 2 CIA officials, one was the head of the CIA (who stepped down precisely because of this insanity) admit he knew what was being shipped when it was coming. The war of drugs is nothing more than a pretense for a police state.
Here's a good video, but I've seen so much more:
http://youtube.com/watch?v=0z6nY3ySWrk

OK. How about paramilitary invasions of sovereign South American nations by DEA commando units?


So it's not the fight, it's the lack of fight to make a police state. It still does not negate the necessity to stop anarchy or the lack of order.

This doesn't make sense to me. No one is suggesting anarchy, or the decriminalization/legalization of violent crimes against victims here. Murder's still prosecutable as murder. Robbery's still prosecutable as robbery.
What we advocate is that some guy smoking a J or snorting a line in the privacy of his own home should not be thrown in jail with the robbers and murderers. Of course there need to be crimes *related* to drug use. Driving while impaired by alcohol is illegal, and driving while impaired by currently-criminalized drugs ought to be as well. At this point, you are affecting others and not just yourself.


6th Dr. Paul's article about the war on doctors is ok within it's sphere of pain prescriptions, but we are talking about the war on innocent that will be wiped out.

7th Police who break the law does not negate the principles of ethics.

Sorry, but I don't buy it. I'll still stick with RP, but this is wrong, just wrong. Laws should not be repealed because of gov't corruption. Truth isn't error because the person or organization who holds it doesn't live up to it.

You're correct about laws not being repealed because of corruption, and that police corruption doesn't negate ethical standards. The thing is, what you're advocating is continuing criminal persecution of people of whom many have harmed no one, AND maintaining a massive, violent, illegal subculture that can only exist because of the criminalization of drug use and other non-violent crimes. Consider the peak of mafia violence during the prohibition era, and the waning afterwards.

Criminalization of drugs hurts more people than it helps. That is an undeniable fact.

[cujothekitten]

1st I never said making laws stop people, but it definitely slows things down. Take a 13 year old, never tried drugs, told drugs kill, but there is a curiosity there. He will more than likely never do hard drugs that kill just because they are illegal. Is this true 100% of the time? Never said, that it certainly slows down the progression of drug use.

No one is talking about making the available to children. We're talking about regulation... like alcohol


2nd The argument that people are going to do it anyway does not negate the principle. People shouldn't get divorced for the good of the children yet they do it anyways. People shouldn't murder others, and police should just follow the law. Ok, bad things happen. But where in any book of true ethical principles does not negate the principle? Arguments of abuse don't negate principles of ethics.

True but there is a right way to handle the situation and a wrong way to handle the situation. You don't throw an addict in jail, you put them in rehab. You don't shield people from the TRUE harm of these drugs, you educate. You don't cost the taxpayers millions of dollars on a drug war that isn't working; you change the plan of attack. The answer isn't tougher penalties it's education, awareness, rehab and regulation.


3rd If drugs are legalized what do you think about your son or daughter at a young age found comatose or dead? It happens now, but the frequency is going to strike a lot closer to home than you imagine.

Again, no one is talking about allowing children to take these drugs. We are talking about regulation and only allowing adults to partake.


4th the Constitution said all men are will have "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness". When any substance that takes away life, destroys your liberty and compromises your will to choose become options than you destroy this fundamental understanding of liberty and how it is protected. Drugs enslave people and the public has the right to be defended. I'm big time small gov't, but you will be opening Pandora's Box to the amount of rehab centers, loss of performance in the work-force, and medical bills associated with drugs.

Again, I have the right to my life, liberty (freedom) and pursuit of happiness... how can I not be allowed to take drugs. If I choose to take them then I am exorcising freedom and happiness. Drugs don't always kill, I've taken my fair share in the past and I'm fine. You're basically talking about restricting freedoms to prevent me from hurting my self. This is part of a nanny state.


So it's not the fight, it's the lack of fight to make a police state. It still does not negate the necessity to stop anarchy or the lack of order.

You do realize many drugs weren't outlawed until the 60's right? Would you call it anarchy before then?


6th Dr. Paul's article about the war on doctors is ok within it's sphere of pain prescriptions, but we are talking about the war on innocent that will be wiped out.

The person isn't innocent if they choose to ingest a drug they know is harmful. It's about personal responsibility.

[Seth M.]

And the states would be more efficient at controlling it.

I am actually against legalizing drugs, but I say let the states see what programs will suit them better. If one state's system seems to work better at making the overall population better, then I imagine other states will follow.

I think the state's are supposed to be miniature American experiments in society, all doing their own version of what they believe government should do. What works best will prevail.

I really like your perspective on this issue.. and would like to add, I believe that is what the original designers of this country intended.

Drugs do kill people. Sure, but that is an effect of the real issue or problem. The real problem is education. I do not think that crack will be sold at Walmart that is ridiculous.. really, the citizens of this country would not allow it. ESPECIALLY if the real problem was answered. When the citizens are educated on the effects of said "drug" then its place in the market would be minor. Take for instance, black widows. It is taught that the black widow can seriously make you ill and some cases kill you. Walmart does not support selling of black widows because NO ONE WILL BUY them.
You have to be licensed to drive a vehicle on state roads. And the state requires you to be educated on the use of a vehicle etc.. see where I am going... There are answers to this problem and prohibition only makes it worse.

Your local illegal drug dealer is not going to and does not educate their buyer on the full short term and long term effects of their illegal prescription. Take that out of their hands. Push for education and get the federal government OUT of the drug business.

my answer:
Abolish prohibition and allow states to regulate at their discretion. examples
---
Cocaine license. 6 week course, fully educate on the effects of cocaine use. (long and short term)
covered by laws exactly like alcohol
meaning...
public intoxication applies
driving under the influence applies
etc...
---
Alternately if the local populous like prohibition and vote it into law then
Cocaine is still illegal.
---

The government can not enforce this "War on Drugs" and the fact that there are illegal drug use without education not only kills people..

but it funds Gangs, and Terrorists, fueling the black market

[DjLoTi]

Mike, there have been a lot of logical and informing arguments that have been thrown your way.

I understand your problem with 'legalizing drugs'. I too also believe that cocaine should not be legal, as should meth, heroin, and ecstasy.

I don't think Ron Paul is going to try too hard to legalize those drugs. I think he's just going to stop the war on drugs. I mean, honestly. The war on drugs is really just a war on marijuana. Marijuana is the most widely used drug, and it is also the most widely criminalize offense in relation to the drug war.

If he leaves the power to the states, all that really means is that the 13 states who have already legalized medical cannabis will not be held in check by federal laws. I don't think it's as extreme as 'crack littered on the streets'

[mdh]

my answer:
Abolish prohibition and allow states to regulate at their discretion. examples
---
Cocaine license. 6 week course, fully educate on the effects of cocaine use. (long and short term)
covered by laws exactly like alcohol
meaning...
public intoxication applies
driving under the influence applies
etc...
---
Alternately if the local populous like prohibition and vote it into law then
Cocaine is still illegal.
---

The government can not enforce this "War on Drugs" and the fact that there are illegal drug use without education not only kills people..

but it funds Gangs, and Terrorists, fueling the black market

I would say that I generally oppose the licensing tactic. Education can be done without supporting the database state practice of licensing everything. I just don't think people need this kind of hand-holding - and definitly not from the government! Certainly private entities will make education materials available to those who want them. In the end, it will really come down to the people responsible for raising a child to impart to them good sense, moderation, and responsibility. If they are unsuccessful in this, the child is likely going to end up either figuring it out for themself or finding some way to get themself hurt/maimed/killed/into trouble with or without criminalized drugs!

On a comical side note; there was a time when the government issued marijuana licenses. It was illegal to possess marijuana without it, but you couldn't get the license without the marijuana in hand, so you had a very weird end run around legality there.

[DjLoTi]

I really just think Ron Paul will give the power to the states. All that means is that the 13 states who have legalized medical marijuana will not be held against federal law.

[buffalokid777]

Drugs will NEVER be legalized...

If they were...how would the CIA get money for black ops without congressional approval for overthrowing other regimes who mess with the corporate interests of big oil???

[SlapItHigh]

http://www.libertypost.org/cgi-bin/readart.cgi?ArtNum=181414 - Love this Milton Friedman speech. MikelovesGod, please give it a read and tell me what you think.

[Seth M.]

I would say that I generally oppose the licensing tactic. Education can be done without supporting the database state practice of licensing everything. I just don't think people need this kind of hand-holding - and definitly not from the government! Certainly private entities will make education materials available to those who want them. In the end, it will really come down to the people responsible for raising a child to impart to them good sense, moderation, and responsibility. If they are unsuccessful in this, the child is likely going to end up either figuring it out for themself or finding some way to get themself hurt/maimed/killed/into trouble with or without criminalized drugs!

On a comical side note; there was a time when the government issued marijuana licenses. It was illegal to possess marijuana without it, but you couldn't get the license without the marijuana in hand, so you had a very weird end run around legality there.

I can totally be swayed to your position.. I just think I would have to see it in practice... lol.. I mean there aren't directions on a shampoo bottle for no reason at all.. some people just fail to understand on their own will.. protection is a little much in my opinion but insisting on education is where I am at right now.

I never knew that there was a marijuana license. :) When one looks into the cannabis topic they will find that it is illegal now for certain reasons and it has more to do with money in peoples pockets than public welfare. I personally don't like the effects myself but some people really discover happiness using it. More power to'em. Oh and I'd wear hemp clothing if it were priced fair.. then pass the clothes down to my grandchildren. ;)

[kaligula]

There really is no thing as "Drug Legalization" per se; the argument is that the federal government should not be regulating/prohibiting them. That position would essentially allow narcotics to be regulated like alcohol--at the state and local levels.

State laws with respect to alochol usually determine where it can be bought and sold, the times when it can be purchased. And at the "county" levels, you still have "dry counties," even in states where it's legal. And certainly, legalization at the state level doesn't mean that moonshine is legal.

In any event, I doubt any state would legalize cocaine and heroin. I doubt, frankly, any state would even legalize marijuana. About the only thing you would see is probably half the states legalizing medical marijuana.

[mikelovesgod]

Ok, but Paul isnt saying that drugs should be LEGALIZED and sold commerically, just that the war on drugs should be halted. You're almost SUPPORTING his position by talking about the corruption related to drugs. Stopping the drug war is very different from legalizing drugs and allowing them to be sold commercially, and does not equate to full legalization of "hard" drugs. What paul is essentially saying is that the drug war is not working, it needs to be halted, and people need to take responsibilities for their actions. It is not the job of the federal government to regulate a war on drugs. That duty can be relegated to the states, and would probably be much, much more effective.

Note; by drugs i mean hard drugs. Marijuana should just be straight up legalized, as it is far less dangerous than alcohol.

Ok, well if he is not for the legalization but against the "war" on it I have no problem whatsoever with that position.

[SeanEdwards]

We are not free to allow the traffic of illegal substances that can easily destroy life and the ignorant and innocent must be protected.

This statement doesn't make any sense to me at all. It's illogical.:confused:

All I can suggest to you friend, is to spend some time reading up on the founders notions of liberty and the role of government.

Also, just because Ron Paul opposes the FEDERAL war on drugs, on the basis that it is unconstitutional (as well as being wrong-headed). There isn't any particular barrier to the states adopting whatever fascist anti-drug scheme you might like. Public beheading of pot heads could serve as an effective drug use deterrent, as well being a source of tourism revenue. Or maybe not.

[CJLauderdale4]

Historical perspective: at one point in the early 1900's, 40-50% of Americans were hooked on various amounts of Heroin or Morphine. This is what initially prompted the Fed to regulate the apothecaries and pharmacies.

But, like most emergencies, the Fed knee-jerked too far and eventually prohibited alcohol altogether too because it was addictive to some.

There must be a happy medium, to protect people (especially children), but also allow liberty (freedom with responsibility)....

[CrownThyGood]

http://www.ciadrugs.com/

something to look at.

[lucky]

Drugs can be bad for sure. Even legal drugs can be bad for sure.

The main gist of everything that we have to look at is if the Government owns the citizens body. If the Gov. does own the citizens body then it can say and make laws that govern what can or can not be ingested in that body.

Also if the Gov. owns that body then it stands to reason that he can intrude in our personal privacy and make sure that the Governed body is not doing anything that it does not want it to.

If the Gov. can intrude into our personal lives then it can eavedrop on conversations and peek in whereever and whenever it feels like it.

If we don't like something so bad that we do not want others to do those things and then demand the Gov. enforces bans on those things because we feel it is harmful or morally wrong then be prepared to accept the consequences. There are not too many gray areas here.

As for me what I choose to do in the privacy of my home to myself should be no ones elses business but my own.

[quickmike]

DRUGS ARE BAAAAD MMMKAAAAY? - South Park

[CJLauderdale4]

just like the alcohol knee-jerk in the 1920's, I think we'll find that some drugs need to be prescribed, and others are virtually harmless when used responsibly.

[mesler]

1st I never said making laws stop people, but it definitely slows things down. Take a 13 year old, never tried drugs, told drugs kill, but there is a curiosity there. He will more than likely never do hard drugs that kill just because they are illegal. Is this true 100% of the time? Never said, that it certainly slows down the progression of drug use.

2nd The argument that people are going to do it anyway does not negate the principle. People shouldn't get divorced for the good of the children yet they do it anyways. People shouldn't murder others, and police should just follow the law. Ok, bad things happen. But where in any book of true ethical principles does not negate the principle? Arguments of abuse don't negate principles of ethics.

3rd If drugs are legalized what do you think about your son or daughter at a young age found comatose or dead? It happens now, but the frequency is going to strike a lot closer to home than you imagine.

4th the Constitution said all men are will have "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness". When any substance that takes away life, destroys your liberty and compromises your will to choose become options than you destroy this fundamental understanding of liberty and how it is protected. Drugs enslave people and the public has the right to be defended. I'm big time small gov't, but you will be opening Pandora's Box to the amount of rehab centers, loss of performance in the work-force, and medical bills associated with drugs.

5th The "War on Drugs" is not a war being a waged. I've watched 2 CIA officials, one was the head of the CIA (who stepped down precisely because of this insanity) admit he knew what was being shipped when it was coming. The war of drugs is nothing more than a pretense for a police state.
Here's a good video, but I've seen so much more:
http://youtube.com/watch?v=0z6nY3ySWrk

So it's not the fight, it's the lack of fight to make a police state. It still does not negate the necessity to stop anarchy or the lack of order.

6th Dr. Paul's article about the war on doctors is ok within it's sphere of pain prescriptions, but we are talking about the war on innocent that will be wiped out.

7th Police who break the law does not negate the principles of ethics.

Sorry, but I don't buy it. I'll still stick with RP, but this is wrong, just wrong. Laws should not be repealed because of gov't corruption. Truth isn't error because the person or organization who holds it doesn't live up to it.

I do not smoke. Not because I can't, but because I think it's nasty and addictive. I think the 12,000,000,000/year they spend on prohibition and law enforcement should be halved and go into research and education. Tell kids exactly what is happening to their brains. Hire crack-heads and jaw-less meth addicts to talk to kids in school. Show people what happens.

[Revolution9]

A note here. For those familair with MK-ULTRA and Monarch mind control programs be apprised that Marijuana was the ONLY substance that they were NOT allowed to partake of. They encouraged ecstacy, cocaine, heroin, the various amphetamines, legal serotonin uptake inhibitors, the diazepam families, barbituates,m biphetamines etc.. The reason marijuana was NOT allowed to these victims of compartmentalising mind control was that it would destroy the programming and reunite the split-into-parts ego/personality sending all that black ops money down the sewer where it rose in stinkng effulgence from.

Best Regards
Randy

[lucky]

A note here. For those familair with MK-ULTRA and Monarch mind control programs be apprised that Marijuana was the ONLY substance that they were NOT allowed to partake of. They encouraged ecstacy, cocaine, heroin, the various amphetamines, legal serotonin uptake inhibitors, the diazepam families, barbituates,m biphetamines etc.. The reason marijuana was NOT allowed to these victims of compartmentalising mind control was that it would destroy the programming and reunite the split-into-parts ego/personality sending all that black ops money down the sewer where it rose in stinkng effulgence from.

Best Regards
Randy

Well ok then.:confused:

[Revolution9]

I took the opportunity to tune up a little speech for the nominated Drug Czar of McRomneyson's Inauguration on a BizarroWorld Earth.


THERE IS A DARK CLOUD HANGING OVER AMERICA AS THE YOUTH
OF OUR GREAT LAND TURN AWAY FROM THE GOVERNMENT AS THE FINAL
ARBITERS OF THEIR EXISTENCE. WE KNOW THAT THE PROPER
POLICING OF YOUNG MINDS AT THIS CRUCIAL JUNCTURE WILL
NECESSARILY BRING ABOUT THE DYSFUNCTION OF UNIVERSAL LAW. IS
THIS WHAT WE WANT? OF COURSE WE DO. NOW, WE ALL KNOW THROUGH
OUR MASSIVE CAMPAIGN OF INFORMING THE PEOPLE OF WHAT WE
THINK THEY SHOULD HEAR, THAT CRIMINALS, THOSE WHO BREAK THE
LAWS AND REFUSE TO LIVE BY OUR RULES, ARE A SCOURGE AND THEY
NEED US TO CRACK THE WHIP OF DEMAGOGUERY AND EXTEND THE
TENTACLE OF COMPASSION IN AN EFFORT TO SHOW THEM THE ERROR
OF THEIR WAYS. THIS TENTACULAR CONTAINMENT IS A NECESSARY
PRECIPICE OF PERIL OVER WHICH WE HOLD THE HOTFOOT OF
SOCIETY.

AS YOU KNOW WE CANNOT HAVE TOO MANY SUSPECTS WHO
ARE INNOCENT OF A CRIME. BY ITS NATURE THAT IS A
CONTRADICTORY STATEMENT.. IF A PERSON IS INNOCENT OF A CRIME
HE IS NOT A SUSPECT. MOST INNOCENT PEOPLE ARE VERY HAPPY TO
TALK TO THE POLICE. THEY ARE MORE THAN PLEASED TO GIVE UP
THEIR VALUABLE WORKDAY TO ESTABLISH THEIR INNOCENCE, SO THAT
THEY ARE NO LONGER A SUSPECT. THIS MINOR LOSS IN DAILY
PRODUCTIVITY WILL RESULT IN AN IMPLICIT OVERALL LEVEL OF
INTRINSIC SECURITY MAKING IT AN ACCEPTABLE COST OF
CONDUCTING OPERATION MORON THUGS.

WE IN THE FLAW REINFORCEMENT COMMUNITY WOULD LIKE TO
THANK PRESIDENT HILLARRACK McROMNEYSON FOR HIS CONTINUED
AND UNPRECEDENTED BALLOONING OF THE FLAW REINFORCEMENT BUDGET.
HILLARRACK McROMNEYSON INDUSTRIES HAS LONG BEEN A MANUFACTURER
OF TACTICAL ANTIBALATRONIC* INFILTRATION AND BOZOMETRIC TELEMETRY
DEVICES, AIDING THE FLAW REINFORCEMENT COMMUNITY IN PINPOINTING
DANGEROUS ACTIVITIES. {HE IS POINTING AT A TECH DIAGRAM OF A CLOWN SMOKING A JOINT) .

ZION PHARMACEUTICALS HAS LONG BEEN THE FORERUNNER IN PSYCHOPHARMACOLOGICAL
SYNTHESIS OF DEPENDENCE AND MANIPULATIVE PECUNIARY TRANSFERENCE. AND SPEAKING
OF DEPENDENCE THIS IS AN OPPORTUNE MOMENT TO INTRODUCE THE NEXT FIRST LADY
OF THE UNITED SNAKES OF AMERICA. MRS RUDY MCROMNEYSON!!

Well..ya think I could write speeches for the opposition?:)

*balatron- 1700's term for a juggling clown

Best Regards
Randy

[MGS]

Ok... I just read up on Paul's stance on drugs and I'm now wavering on the guy. You cannot legalize insanity and anarchy. Institutionalized legality of things which can kill you easily is insane.

Cigarettes and alcohol are legal.

[Anne]

Ok... I just read up on Paul's stance on drugs and I'm now wavering on the guy. You cannot legalize insanity and anarchy. Institutionalized legality of things which can kill you easily is insane.

Isn't it every person's choice whether or not he should ruin his body with drugs? Why does the government have any say in what you put in your body???

[Anne]

A note here. For those familair with MK-ULTRA and Monarch mind control programs be apprised that Marijuana was the ONLY substance that they were NOT allowed to partake of. They encouraged ecstacy, cocaine, heroin, the various amphetamines, legal serotonin uptake inhibitors, the diazepam families, barbituates,m biphetamines etc.. The reason marijuana was NOT allowed to these victims of compartmentalising mind control was that it would destroy the programming and reunite the split-into-parts ego/personality sending all that black ops money down the sewer where it rose in stinkng effulgence from.

Best Regards
Randy

Bingo! There have also been studies that show caffeine is much more harmful to the brain than any other drug. Have you seen the pictures of spiders' webs on caffeine?

[Seth M.]

Isn't it every person's choice whether or not he should ruin his body with drugs? Why does the government have any say in what you put in your body???


Why? follow the money sad to say :(

[Shmuel Spade]

Speaking candidly for a moment I have to say: I despise drug warriors even more than I do "terror warriors" or cold warriors.

[NewEnd]

Drugs don't kill people? Go snort some coke some night and tell me it can't happen. Crack addicts go to incredible lengths to get money to get more. Heroin kills so many people on just one night, so does speed balls.

Do you want to see the rise of innocent deaths? Legalize drugs, allow Walmart to sell it, and let's see what happens. Many, many, many people won't do them simply because of the fear of getting arrested and it stops their curiosity. Watch how many people die in proportion to what we have now.

Anything which can effectively kill you on one night by an accident should be illegal. You can't OD on weed, and ODing on alcohol is incredibly difficult and very rarely causes death, but it certainly can happen with crack, coke and heroin. One night and you are dead. I don't want that situation to be a reality.

Want no drug problem? Follow Madagascar's policy: found dealing drugs you die. The real problem is the justice system allowing this while the ACLU destroying justice by playing the system, and the gov't not arresting people and shipments they know exist. My freaking brother was a dealer, the cops knew it, and never did a thing until he almost died. I used to work with drug addicts so I know how the system works and how the juridical system is handcuffed to the new insanity of false civil liberties that are perpetrated by ingenious lawyers who defend the guilty looking for loopholes while be funded by drug dollars.

That's the problem, not this pseudo war we are facing.

Freedom implies morality. We are not free to murder, we are not free to defamation, etc.. We are not free to allow the traffic of illegal substances that can easily destroy life and the ignorant and innocent must be protected. This is institionalized license and to pretend that it will kill the Afghan trade of opium, or stop the bad guys in alleys from the perpetuation of a black market is myopic and sophomoric logic.

Guns kill people
hamburgers kill people
cars kill people

[NewEnd]

Historical perspective: at one point in the early 1900's, 40-50% of Americans were hooked on various amounts of Heroin or Morphine. This is what initially prompted the Fed to regulate the apothecaries and pharmacies.


No it's not. And that number is way off, and impossible. I don't know where you go tit, but it cannot be true.

The first drug made illegal was cocaine, and that was because it was being sold fraudulently as a cure for everything.

[angelatc]

It's been a looooong time since I wrote term papers, but I seem to recall that the original US drug laws had to do with opium. The white women were sneaking off to China town to get stoned all day.

edited to add: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prohibition_(drugs)#Early_drug_laws


The first law outright prohibiting the use of a specific drug was a San Francisco, California ordinance which banned the smoking of opium in opium dens in 1875 . The inspiration was "many women and young girls, as well as young men of respectable family, were being induced to visit the Chinese opium-smoking dens, where they were ruined morally and otherwise....

My brain isn't entirely addled.

[NewEnd]

It's been a looooong time since I wrote term papers, but I seem to recall that the original US drug laws had to do with opium. The white women were sneaking off to China town to get stoned all day.

edited to add: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prohibition_(drugs)#Early_drug_laws



My brain isn't entirely addled.

Perhaps, either way, certainly 40-50% of America was not hooked on opiates.

[cujothekitten]

Perhaps, either way, certainly 40-50% of America was not hooked on opiates.

That may not be too far off. Remember that morphine and other opiates were in most of the patent medicines. It wasn't something that needed a prescription and was handed out to children as well as adults.

[NewEnd]

That may not be too far off. Remember that morphine and other opiates were in most of the patent medicines. It wasn't something that needed a prescription and was handed out to children as well as adults.

Nope, sorry, not buying it. I'll need to see a study or some real good evidence.

And he used the term "hooked". I am just not believing it.

[angelatc]

Perhaps, either way, certainly 40-50% of America was not hooked on opiates.

No, the opium laws were clearly written in the name of morality.

[Gee]

Legalizing drugs would not harm others, or innocents. Drugs would be cheap enough that people would not have to kill and steal for them, and their legalization would mean that drug dealers and kingpins would be out of work. Yes, more people could afford to destroy their own lives, but they would be less likely to destroy the lives of others.

There is just no way the illegial drug trade could compete with a legal, free market of drugs. Real businessmen would crush them. Drugs would be regulated, safer, and properly labeled.

The idea that people are not intelligent enough to know what they can and cannot eat, snort, smoke or inject into their veins is... I'm sorry, just incredibly pessimistic to me. Drugs are very easy to come by for people who actually want to try them.

Why do kids want to try them? Because the existance and effects of drugs are DRILLED into their heads by our education system. Of course they are curious! In the history of mankind, has telling a child or adolescent "Don't do X, even though its a lot of fun, because X is dangerous" EVER worked? It doesn't work with alcohol - plenty of nations with lower minimum drinking ages have less of a problem with alcoholism in kids (France). Why would we think it would somehow work with drugs?

At any rate, the power would go to the states, so its moot.

[mikelovesgod]

Guns kill people
hamburgers kill people
cars kill people

I was already clarified with my inquiry by the one poster which I looked up and confirmed.

Your statement though isn't the point. Objects used for public consumption and use are judged by their moral objective. A gun is morally neutral and can be used for moral good or evil, the same with hamburgers and cars. Drugs don't have any neutrality, they are made to destroy the God given ability of ratiocination and with that harm potential death to physical body. That's the reason why drugs are intrinsically immoral to the user while your other examples are not intrinsically harmful.

You study the object in their moral use as either intrinsic to their use and if so their use is always wrong. Such is the case with the uses of drugs and poisons to our body.

When someone uses a gun they use it for someone other than themselves unless it's suicide. Guns are morally reprehensible in murder or in the case of children handling them. Guns are laudable for self-defense of defense of family or country. Stick a gun in the hand of a 4 year old and tell me if the act is moral. Hamburgers don't kill anyone and can be healthy in moderation. Cars are completely neutral in their use and are mostly used for utilitarian reasons.

The same cannot be said for drugs whose only purpose is to erase ratiocination and create psychotropic reactions not found in nature. Too much exposure immediately creates brain trauma, heart trauma, or death. Things which can be used in moderation and do not create such reactions in moderate forms can be moral as their immediate use in small forms do not cause bodily damage. I don't have time to give an ethics discussion, but I hope this suffices that such examples are poor in nature and do not expose the discussion at hand in the same formality of thought.

[Shmuel Spade]

Morals and morality only make sense in terms of human action, they are irrational in relation to inanimate objects. Inanimate objects left alone and untended by human intelligence will simply be exposed to the elements and wear away. Rust, mold, dissolution, and disintegration will happen and the inanimate objects will cease to be.

Please stop posting on this topic mike.

[mikelovesgod]

Shmuel,

Morals do only make sense to humans because we have an intellect and a will. How that has any relation to the context of the discussion you have not defined. Last time I checked we were both human and this topic does relate unless you pretend to be a rust, mold, etc..

Last time I checked the entire purpose of supporting a candidate was because we believed in them, something only humans can do. Their ideas are important and the discussion of those ideas are vital.

My inquiry was sufficiently resolved, but to hear someone refute morality on specious arguments need to be addressed.

[graystar]

Is there a law against people drinking Draino?

[Shmuel Spade]

Morals do only make sense to humans because we have an intellect and a will.

If you meant this as in the same way that I meant my words in my last post (that the terms, phrases, and descriptions of things as "moral" or "immoral" can only be coherent in relation to human actions, and irrational if used in other contexts) then very good. This is all that needs to be said.

If you meant this as simply "because humans are smart, they can understand", then you've misunderstood.


How that has any relation to the context of the discussion you have not defined.

Quotes from you:

"Objects used for public consumption and use are judged by their moral objective."

Objects are not be judged, only human actions are to be judged, as only human actions can be either moral or immoral.

"Drugs don't have any neutrality, they are made to destroy the God given ability of ratiocination and with that harm potential death to physical body."

"Drugs" (a scare word nowadays) are inanimate objects, and as such are by definition morally neutral. I'll assume if you're upholding what you've said in this sentence you advocate the prohibition of alcohol, cigarettes, and just about all other "drugs" humans can "legally" get their hands on. In that case you might want want to have a second look at this party (http://www.prohibition.org/), They're applying your principles to the letter.

"That's the reason why drugs are intrinsically immoral to the user while your other examples are not intrinsically harmful."

The inanimate objects known as "drugs" are not "immoral" (not even intrinsically) only particular human actions are immoral.

"Guns are morally reprehensible in murder or in the case of children handling them."

Guns are inanimate objects, and therefore cannot be "morally reprehensible" or "laudable". Only human actions can be morally reprehensible or laudable.

"Stick a gun in the hand of a 4 year old and tell me if the act is moral."

It seems that here you were actually able to make the distinction, even if only briefly and perhaps only subconsciously. Note the description of the action here as moral or immoral, and not the ridiculous notion of the gun being moral or immoral. Inanimate objects do not act, sentient creatures do.

"Hamburgers don't kill anyone and can be healthy in moderation."

Here you let on an heretofore undisclosed insight that hamburgers may not be healthy out of moderation, in fact they may even kill you. The same can be said of "drugs", which many of our members have attested to consuming in unknown quantities. Drug consumers don't consume the product to be killed, and drug producers and retailers don't produce the product to kill their customers. That would be absurd, as there would be no repeat business. Drugs are consumed for the effects they have on the human body and the human psyche, and in moderation they can be healthy.

Even if drugs did kill people, i.e. people voluntarily chose to kill themselves with drugs (as humans have done for all of recorded history) I personally wouldn't try to pass a law to stop such an action. Individuals are the owners of themselves, and they can dispose of themselves as they see fit. If you believe that human beings in reality are the property of a god and so being are actually stewards of their bodies and lives, then such is your personal belief. Use your human capabilities of reason, intellect, and will to argue with other humans for your point of view. Don't simply threaten them with punishment for not conforming to your private religious views.

"Cars are completely neutral in their use and are mostly used for utilitarian reasons."

Another reference to the human action of use being either moral or immoral, and not the silly position of positing inanimate objects like cars being immoral or moral.

"The same cannot be said for drugs whose only purpose is to erase ratiocination and create psychotropic reactions not found in nature."

"Drugs" are inanimate objects like all other inanimate objects mentioned thus far. The reactions produced by consumption of some drugs are indeed natural, as the drugs and all ingredients for them are to be found in nature. Humans have been seeking out these drugs from nature for as long as drugs have been known to them.

"Too much exposure immediately creates brain trauma, heart trauma, or death. Things which can be used in moderation and do not create such reactions in moderate forms can be moral as their immediate use in small forms do not cause bodily damage."

Which "drugs" are you referring to? Would you like to eliminate human free will to ensure that no one uses things beyond moderation?

Notice how you've switched back to referring to inanimate objects as either immoral or moral when you've moved onto the subject of "drugs." During the founding of the United States it was a goal to finally put an end to the superstitious ideas that supported the concept of deodand, why would you like to bring it back?


Last time I checked we were both human and this topic does relate…

Relate to what? And who asked about relation?


Last time I checked the entire purpose of supporting a candidate was because we believed in them, something only humans can do.

:confused:


My inquiry was sufficiently resolved…

Ron Paul as POTUS would not be a legislator but the chief executive, and as such would have no power to "legalize" anything. Not that I want "drugs" or anything else "legalized" anyway. I'm not sure you'll even comprehend that last sentence so I'll stop there.


…but to hear someone refute morality on specious arguments need to be addressed.

Who "refuted" morality?

[NewEnd]

Processed cheese is disgusting and unhealthy. It is unecessary, and only used for pleasure.

We can live without processed cheese, we can live without transfats, like partially hydrogenated soybean oil, which is not consumed in "nature" (the hydrogenization process is unnatural)

Yet it is legal, and very unhealthy.

The obesity epidemic in America is a much bigger crisis than the drug epidemic, and at least a hundred times more people die each year from obesity related diseases than illicit narcotic use-related diseases.

Skydiving, is incredibly dangerous, and yet, it is legal, same with skateboarding and mountain biking. What is natural about jumping off of a cliff, or out of a plane?


The same cannot be said for drugs whose only purpose is to erase ratiocination and create psychotropic reactions not found in nature.

ratiocination? Please tell me, who is more clear thinking;

A: the stoner who thinks that time is precious, and spending 60 hours a week working as an admiistrative's assisant is a waste of life or

B: the administratvie assistant who thinks money is precious, working 60 hours a week thinking the stoner has a wasted life?

You talk of ratiocination and then nature, and try to apply it to human nature, which is not natural at all. We are not natural beings.


Too much exposure immediately creates brain trauma, heart trauma, or death.

You are classifying all drugs as the same drug, many drugs do not immediatley cause damage.


Things which can be used in moderation and do not create such reactions in moderate forms can be moral as their immediate use in small forms do not cause bodily damage.

Drugs can be used in moderation, without any harm, unless somebody has an adverse reaction. Much like peanut butter.


I don't have time to give an ethics discussion, but I hope this suffices that such examples are poor in nature and do not expose the discussion at hand in the same formality of thought.

I think they do. How people choose to destroy their bodies is really not anyone else's business. There are a million ways to screw yourself up. Drugs are just one of them.

[Electric Church]

Ok... I just read up on Paul's stance on drugs and I'm now wavering on the guy. You cannot legalize insanity and anarchy. Institutionalized legality of things which can kill you easily is insane.

then take a hike...join another forum....bye:cool:

[NewEnd]

P.S.

Don't even get me started on the most dangerous drug of them all..... television.

Talk about something whose only purpose is to erase ratiocination and create psychotropic reactions not found in nature.

That's the definition of advertising.

[NewEnd]

then take a hike...join another forum....bye:cool:


No, I don't think so.

mikelovesgod, you are certainly welcome, and talking about legalizing drugs seems strange, because so many of them seem evil, but evil is in actions, not thought or substance.

I think advertising Big Macs to children is terrible, but because this is America, I believe McDonalds has the right to do so. I can only hope over time, the truth will win, andpeople will realise how incredibly wrong Mcdonalds is to push very unhealthy food to children. They love McDonalds not because it tastes good, but because it is associated with puppet characters and indoor play rooms.

[AgentSmith]

Ok... I just read up on Paul's stance on drugs and I'm now wavering on the guy. You cannot legalize insanity and anarchy. Institutionalized legality of things which can kill you easily is insane.

Dear god how did mankind survive for 2 centuries? How did the united states survive for over 100 years? :eek:

[Marc Scott Emery]

If he allows states to prosecute the issue I have no problem. But if his position is the legality of drugs I have severe problems with that. I was to work with people on drugs, some became friends and some are now dead at young ages.

The problem with the "war of drugs" is that the leaders of the country allow drug pushers to go free even though they know they are guilty and know where the drugs are. Watching the head of the CIA admit this changed my view that the problem wasn't the "war" but how the war is being fought, namely, with their eyes shut.


Mike,

Freedom is that kind of risk. Some people may tragically misuse drugs to their own and perhaps the detriment of others.

But prohibition is worse, much worse. I believe all prohibitions create the reverse of the stated intention of prohibition. Corrupt officials, social disorder, huge prison populations, selective prosecution of the vulnerable classes, massive financial cost to the taxpayer, an always expanding police state, tremendous erosion of the Constitution, particularly the first nine, including the second, and millions of broken families as incarceration levels inevitably skyrocket under drug prohibitions.

Prohibitions of every kind create larger government, more intrusive government, responsibility and authority are wrested from parents and adult citizens and then become vested in the political establishment and government. Gun prohibition, drug prohibition, alcohol prohibition, abortion prohibition, technology prohibition, stem-cell prohibition, gold currency prohibition, gambling prohibitions, etc. all result in increasing power of the government and fewer Constitutional and privacy rights for Americans. And all prohibitions are destabilizing.

It was Ayn Rand who said " civilization is the progress toward individual privacy, free from the dictates and admonitions of the tribe, the collective. " Indeed, every form of prohibition is an invasion of fundamental privacy. The Founding Fathers would have been opposed to drug or plant prohibitions as they were to gun prohibitions and commerce prohibitions. Indeed, President Washington is the largest cultivator of cannabis in the history of the United States even to this present day. In 1789, George Washington was the largest single landholder in the entire United States and since 1760 had cultivated thousands of acres of cannabis annually, and Mr. Washington made copious diary notes about his many varieties of cannabis including his prized 'INDIA' cannabis. Jefferson, Madison Washington were professed admirers of cannabis.

Criminality thrives in the dark of prohibition. Men of reason prosper in the light.

[G-khan]

If he allows states to prosecute the issue I have no problem. But if his position is the legality of drugs I have severe problems with that. I was to work with people on drugs, some became friends and some are now dead at young ages.

The problem with the "war of drugs" is that the leaders of the country allow drug pushers to go free even though they know they are guilty and know where the drugs are. Watching the head of the CIA admit this changed my view that the problem wasn't the "war" but how the war is being fought, namely, with their eyes shut.

Well before the 1914 Harrison act was passed you could buy all the drugs you wanted... 1913 they got the Federal Reserve and Income Tax started.. I can tell you this from my studies and from doing drug counseling in our prison system. The worst drug I have found IMO is alcohol they made it illegal with prohibition for a while and that is what gave rise to Al Capone and all the killings in Chicago. Right now the gangs that are around the leaders drive big expensive cars and attract new members with the money that can be made. Drugs IMO are the glue that holds them together..

Think about this - it is illegal for me to come across certain plants (weed opium peyote etc.) that God put on this earth and eat them. It is wrong to do that and I don't need a daddy to tell me what I can do. Now if I eat one of those plants and do something to someone else that is another story. If I want to eat big macs smoke cigarettes or drink poison I consider that my business and my life.

Liberty means I can do what I like as long as I do not infringe on your Liberties..

I don't smoke or drink or use drugs but I think it is my right to do so if that is what I choose.

There are other things that can be done to discourage the use of drugs without locking them up in prison and making us all pay for it. I believe it does not save lives because it causes gangsters to carry guns and protect their supply and territory. There is big time blowback from making drugs illegal and like Iraq is causing death..

Just look back before 1914 when they were legal - you could buy heroin at the local drug store. They did not carry guns around in 1914 - why do they now?

If drugs were legal we would empty out most of the prisons and could use that money for treatment.

Sounds like you want to throw away the key on the so called drug leaders and have us all pay for it. I would rather they be treated like alcoholics.

Thats My 2 cents worth...........

[Electric Church]

If all drugs were legalized it would not result in the increase of drug users but it would place the distribution of addictive drugs in the hands of medical professionals, instead of gang related drug dealers, who would deal with addicts on a one on one safe and professional basis, providing them with the ability to be weaned off of their addiction. Legalizing all drugs forces us to deal with addiction and fight a war on addiction and not a war on drugs.

When we legalize drugs we will immediately wipe out 98% of all prostitution.. 98% of all gang activity, 98 percent of crime because most crime is related to drug trafficking or drug addicts trying to get money for their next fix.

Also by wiping out all this crime we will immediately reduce the amount of expenditure for law enforcement, which is failing miserably on the current war on drugs and costing billions.

Go Ron go…….

[Spatch67]

then take a hike...join another forum....bye:cool:

Not cool Electric Church! First of all, Mike started this post because he needed to understand fully what Ron Paul means when he says "legalize drugs". Like it or not, this is going to be the elephant in the corner of the room of Ron Pauls campaign and we need to learn to convey and communicate this message to everyone, and Mikelovesgod is currently asking all the questions that we as Ron Paul supporters better get good at answering, and we better get good at answering them fast.

Our society is pounded by Bernaysian tactics by the government. We have been led to believe that drugs are pure evil, and without the government protecting us from them, we are hopeless and doomed to anarchy.

Typical Americans have had the War on Drugs hammered into thier head all of their lives. There is simply no alternative and to mention or suggest otherwise is insane. It also is political suicide unless you can make your talking points really fast and really effective.

What people don't stop and think about is, if we don't have a war on drugs, some people do drugs.

But since we have a war on drugs: People do drugs, criminals get rich, prisons overcrowd because they are filled with young kids who were toting a dime bag, corrupt politicians get rich, corrupt law enforcement officials get rich, gangs start, and many other things. Most importantly however is that kids die in the streets from stray bullets.

More people die PERIOD! because of the drug war. Way more! I know you know this as do most people on this board, but Ma and Pa America living in suburbia don't see or realize what is happening internally to our cities. We have to learn to communicate this to others.

Now I'm not an administrator or anything and I don't speak for everyone, but if I can state my opinion: As for dismissing people from this board, you should rethink your attitude on that. Mike is asking intelligent questions and not being belligerent. We should welcome all people who are "wavering" and have questions and concerns. We need supporters, but we are going to reach a mass where it is going to be a small group of people who understand these issues. At some point we are going to have to start educating and convincing if Ron Paul is going to win anything.

[Electric Church]

Not cool Electric Church! you should rethink your attitude on that. Mike is asking intelligent questions and not being belligerent. We should welcome all people who are "wavering" and have questions and concerns.


I agree...just a passionate response...my apology....note my latest reply....i give more details

[Marc Scott Emery]

That may not be too far off. Remember that morphine and other opiates were in most of the patent medicines. It wasn't something that needed a prescription and was handed out to children as well as adults.


'40-50%' addiction in the legal period? That assertion is grossly incorrect. By 1905, there were an estimated 500,000 Americans using heroin and opiates in alcohols, pills, powders. The cost was about 10 - 30 cents a day and it was mostly women. Women liked opiates because million of women were beaten by drunken men, life was hard, medical care scarce, drugs cheap and legal so women dealt with pain uncomplainingly by taking these opiate drugs available everywhere. Women were quiet on opiates so no one much minded as that is how a lady was supposed to behave. But once opiates got banned (state prohibition laws began to appear in 1907 and became federalized in 1914) and most white women didn't fancy themselves as opium-den types in the prohibition period, they got their revenge and banned alcohol within 6 months of getting the vote in 1919. Alcohol was sought to be banned because of the extensive carnage alcohol wreaked on women. Opiate addiction however had few social repercusions regarding crime, violence, domestic household disorder. Ordinary middle class women are often seeking drugs for depression or stress, every generation of women has different drugs (Mother's Little Helpers) , in 1885 - 1910, opiates, 1950's - tranquilizers, Valium, SSRI's in the 90's and new millenium. There were no women prostituting themselves for cheap opiates, no home invasions, no street crime, no gun crime, no criminal gangs peddling drugs, children had no fascination with drugs, during the period when drugs were legal. Prohibitions of drugs and alcohol fuelled the Jewish mafia, the Italian mafia, the black inner city gangs, and we still bear that prohibitionist legacy today, except now we have mafias of every ethnic group because the money is too fantastic for anyone to ignore.

[Michael Varin]

Freedom implies morality. We are not free to murder, we are not free to defamation, etc.. We are not free to allow the traffic of illegal substances that can easily destroy life and the ignorant and innocent must be protected. This is institionalized license and to pretend that it will kill the Afghan trade of opium, or stop the bad guys in alleys from the perpetuation of a black market is myopic and sophomoric logic.

Do you know much about the prohibition era? Do you believe alcohol should be made illegal again?

http://mises.org/multimedia/block/block-ourstory-02-28-2007.wmv

Don’t forget that drugs (marijuana, opium, cocaine) were totally legal and un-regulated in this country until some very shady legislation in 1914.

You should step back and take an objective look at this issue. Regardless of what conclusion you come to, you’ll be better off for exploring all sides of it.

Michael

[Marc Scott Emery]

that you can't let one of two of Dr. Paul's positions negate the hundreds of positions you do like of Dr. Paul's!

Its possible all of Dr. Paul's supporters might have one or two or even more positions that don't match Ron Paul. Maybe on abortion, maybe drugs, maybe the Federal Reserve, but Congressman Paul has written over 500 articles! Is it possible any one of us can find identical agreement in all 500 essays! Probably not. Though I'll say this. In this campaign alone, I have learned alot from Dr. Paul and HE HAS CHANGED MY MIND ON ISSUES because he is consistent. Consistency in him made me look at inconsistencies in me. Ron Paul is the most prolific writer on political issues of any Congressman. He is candid and truthful and intellectually honest. Ron Paul is not out to trick me or you, or use emotional rhetoric to obscure his true agenda. He has nothing to gain. I trust him like I trust almost no other human being.

His integrity is his life. Champion of The Constitution. I was so proud of him when he said that at the outset of NH Debate. What's not to like!?

[ShaneC]

After reading and browsing all the pages in this thread, I feel I should ask this:

How likely is this to become a real issue? Honestly?

Dr. Paul could request to cut the funding of the "War on Drugs", and even provided that the budget cut went through, whats the likelihood of this topic actually getting onto the floor and being voted on to the degree of completely removing Federal Oversight regarding "drugs"?

[AgentSmith]

During alcohol prohibition the US Government released a report that concluded that all prohibition really did was to corrupt law enforcement.

[ChooseLiberty]

If you're into morality (or not) is it "moral" to have one of the biggest wealth transfers the world has ever seen from US citizens to the drug cartels to the point where they rival major corporations and small governments in income? Add in wealth transfer to drug gangs and the drug law enforcement itself. It's a huge narco-industrial complex based on funneling money to both sides with no end in sight and nothing useful produced. What if the DEA money were funneled into scientific research. What amazing things could happen.

I think one of the biggest arguments (amoral) is economics. Decriminalize and regulate. Drug prices reach a lower free market clearing price are taxed and administered under controlled circumstances - something similar to the Dutch. Talk about a peace dividend.

[Sakimoto]

If he allows states to prosecute the issue I have no problem. But if his position is the legality of drugs I have severe problems with that. I was to work with people on drugs, some became friends and some are now dead at young ages.

The problem with the "war of drugs" is that the leaders of the country allow drug pushers to go free even though they know they are guilty and know where the drugs are. Watching the head of the CIA admit this changed my view that the problem wasn't the "war" but how the war is being fought, namely, with their eyes shut.

No, the problem with the "war on drugs" is that it is completely futile, severely erodes civil liberties, empowers and already powerful government, and ruins the lives of friends and family. Hey, lets have a "war on crime" too. Maybe a "war on trans fat"? Let's have a war on anything and everthing the government says is bad so we can be slaves. Anytime the government starts a "war" on something, you can guarantee it won't be good for freedom.

[angelatc]

Well, I think that the original poster has a valid point about the social stigma being a deterrent. I do not think that the stigma would vanish if drugs were decriminalized. I'm not sure how old you are, but when I was a kid in the '60's litter was a big problem. Driving down the highway, it was commonplace to see people throwing garbage out of their cars.

Two things happened: The States passed laws prohibiting it, but more importantly the "Crying Indian" commercial hit the airwaves. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q_gokTG46oQ for you youngsters.

Statisticians might review that period in time and argue that increasing the fines associated with littering decreases littering, but those of us that were there know that the truth is the damned Indian called us on being slobs.

I don't know anybody who got a ticket for littering.

[Sakimoto]

I don't believe the government should be allowed to kill it's citizens, either.

Yeah, I'm pretty sure anyone who believes this doesn't believe in freedom. :confused:

[angelatc]

After reading and browsing all the pages in this thread, I feel I should ask this:

How likely is this to become a real issue? Honestly?

?

IMHO, it's very likely to become a real issue. His opponents won't hesitate to decry it as insanity, and paint him as some sort of a dangerous wildcard that would have drug addicts dying on the streets.

[JoshLowry]

Thanks for keeping things civil. Lots of good points made.

It is tough like Mark said to agree with every issue that comes along. However he is the farthest thing from a "lesser evil" that I've seen in a long time.

The man who agrees with me 80% of the time is not my enemy, he is my friend.

[mesler]

btw, WELCOME to the forums, Mikelovesgod. :)

[lucky]

Drugs can be bad for sure. Even legal drugs can be bad for sure.

The main gist of everything that we have to look at is if the Government owns the citizens body. If the Gov. does own the citizens body then it can say and make laws that govern what can or can not be ingested in that body.

Also if the Gov. owns that body then it stands to reason that he can intrude in our personal privacy and make sure that the Governed body is not doing anything that it does not want it to.

If the Gov. can intrude into our personal lives then it can eavedrop on conversations and peek in whereever and whenever it feels like it.

If we don't like something so bad that we do not want others to do those things and then demand the Gov. enforces bans on those things because we feel it is harmful or morally wrong then be prepared to accept the consequences. There are not too many gray areas here.

As for me what I choose to do in the privacy of my home to myself should be no ones elses business but my own.

Also lets figure that Ron Paul is elected. He is not gonna be making drugs legal. He is a Constitutionalist. He will stop funding the drug war with all the attendant abuses. It will be up the the states to do as they think is right and not talked down to by a Big Brother.

If California and the other states want medical marijuana then let them have it. The Feds have no right to tell the states that even if you believe that a drug is beneficial to many for many different illnesses, we think it is wrong and morally corrupt and we are the Feds and say NO.

The Feds do not own the states or people.

[Sakimoto]

Also lets figure that Ron Paul is elected. He is not gonna be making drugs legal. He is a Constitutionalist. He will stop funding the drug war with all the attendant abuses. It will be up the the states to do as they think is right and not talked down to by a Big Brother.

If California and the other states want medical marijuana then let them have it. The Feds have no right to tell the states that even if you believe that a drug is beneficial to many for many different illnesses, we think it is wrong and morally corrupt and we are the Feds and say NO.

The Feds do not own the states or people.

This is an excellent point. To those who are wavering on supporting Paul over the drug issue, it is important to remember why we like Ron Paul. One of the reasons I respect him is because he respects the CONSTITUTION and opposes centralization of government (as did the founders). Let it be a State issue and reduce the federal government behemoth to the powers enumerated in the constitution. I think most people can respect that.

[theblatanttruth]

As said before, the War on Drugs is ONLY A WAR ON MARIJUANA.

Look at the facts, every other drug (hard or not) such as coke, crack, opiates, nerve pills, pain pills, etc etc etc are all out of your system within a few days.

Marijuana stays for 1-2 months depending on usage amount.

Employers use an unconstitutional PRE-SCREEN for drugs, which first off assumes guilt before any evidence (circumstantial OR physical) which is basically only 'weed'ing out MJ smokers because all any one else has to do is quit hooting coke for 3 days and they've got a job.

It's a sickeningly ineffective stance to take because you're weeding out the users who's drug is the LEAST debilitating. Hell, I've seen some pretty motivated pot smokers in my time.

The fact is you'll never be able to control what one does to themselves in a free society, when you do you create a vacuum for illegal and violent activity mating supply with demand which just causes violent crime.

[Bossobass]

All the War on Drugs ever was intended to do is eliminate competition.

Ask Pappy Bush what became of the Billions in the Panamanian drug cash laundering Banks, full of Escobar's money, after Bush ordered the brutal invasion of Panama and buried Noriega in an American prison and killed Escobar.

Our government deals drugs on a MASSIVE scale. As RP says, the government hates competition. Thus, the 'War on Drugs'.

Read Terry Reed's book, Clinton, Bush and the CIA. It's an eye-opener. Read, Our Man In Panama, and I'm sure there are no shortage of good books on the subject.

I firmly believe that we would already be in a cashless society, were it not for drug sales by the animals who control our system.

The War on Drugs has to go. It imprisons people who can't afford a good lawyer and who have NOTHING to do with the traffic of drugs into America...period.

Look at the balls RP has:

Phase out the Fed.
Stop the War on Drugs.
Get rid of the IRS.
Cut the Military Budget by closing bases and bringing home troops.
Stop the flow of illegal aliens.
Stop S&PP, North American Union.
Stop the Amero.

That's pi$$ing in trillions of dollars worth of cornflakes.

So...to anyone who doesn't see that we need these things to change so desperately, and that when one of the last of the real men in this country like RP stand up and risk all to move to affect those changes...we need to stand up with him and push until it hurts.

IMHO, the reason that there's a drug problem in this country is that the media bombard it's populus every second, from every conceivable direction with consumerism...The American Dream.

Own a house, buy a car, fill the house with gadgets and goods, have good credit, open a checking and savings account and qualify for the Platunum card.

IOW, read the above paragraph: Bank, bank, bank, bank, bank and bank.

The bank's aim is to trap you into a situation that is inescapable, regardless of your income level. I have friends who are/were very high up the banking ladder, and you wouldn't believe the half of their machinations.

I could go on, but I think you get the message...if you don't, the alternative is more of what we have. Deficit spending for the American Dream, which is really the Banker's Dream to tear down your country and rule over you as a dumb animal who can't reason for himself.

Bosso

[wwycher]

If we get Ron Paul elected, we are gonna' have to start looking to our state governments to pull their weight again. The Federal gov was never intended to deal with this. By allowing them to mix a war on drugs, foreign policy and a secret government that bypasses congess we have allowed our leaders to become addicted to a "speedball" of power. We need a peaceful revolution and to clean house like our founders told us to do. I don't want people die from drugs but I know they do and they always will. That is if history has told me anything.
Dr. Paul is here to pop this overinflated, power hungry Federal gov we've got.
The whole deflation process of the Fed. gov. will feel foreign and maybe painful to us at first but will be best in the end, kinda like an emergency surgery.

[angelatc]

If we get Ron Paul elected, we are gonna' have to start looking to our state governments to pull their weight again.

That's the truth, isn't it? One of the mayors in ths part of the country got really mad when the citizens demanded that something be done about the illegal immigrants in his city. He said "Why is this suddenly so important? Go complain to the Federal government if you don't like it!"

That's what I want in a Mayor, alright.

[specsaregood]

//

[enan]

That's an excellent idea. I'm going to make a thread about it.