The Fed Gov will not be pestering non-violent drug users under a Ron Paul Presidency

[johngr]

From the Philadelphia speech on November 10, 2007: "[If I'm elected], believe me, the federal gov't is not going to be pestering [non-violent drug users]" (forgive the pharaphrase but he stammers alot).

This can only mean that he will instruct the AG not to prosecute drug cases. But will he pardon non-violent drug offenders as he will have the power to do under the US Constitution Article 2 Section 2 and U.S. v Klein (80 US 128)? Since he is a moral man and he will not be able in good conscience to allow them to languish in prison, I believe the answer is yes.

Note to naysayers: he did not say "I will 'work' with the congress to get the federal gov't to stop pestering non-violent drug users".

[johngr]

Bump! I guess everybody agrees with me or someone would have posted on this thread by now!

[fsk]

People are brainwashed "Drugs are bad! Drug users and dealers must be in jail!"

Ron Paul's attitude is "I support common law". That means, "If you don't injure anyone, it's not a crime." By that standard, drug users and drug dealers are not criminals, provided the drug dealer is actually selling what he claims to be selling.

Ron Paul also says "The Constitution does not specifically delegate to the Federal Government the right to regulate drugs. Therefore, this is none of the Federal Government's business. If a state wants to decriminalize marijuana, that is within the rights of that state."

This goes against the mainstream media bias.

There are too many people who benefit financially from the "War on Drugs".

Some Ron Paul supporters are saying "Ron Paul should avoid contradicting mainstream media bias as often as possible. Whenever Ron Paul contradicts a mainstream hotbutton brainwashing issue, he risks losing support."

Therefore, Ron Paul supporters will not emphasize Ron Paul's desire to decriminalize drug use.

[johngr]

People who peruse this folder and don't comment are cowards if they don't even want to discuss the issue. I don't know about anyone else, but I don't want my kid's life ruined by being thrown into a hellhole prison because he does something stupid (and harms no one in the process) or chooses what medicine he wants to use.

The MSM knows Dr Paul's stance on drugs. Us not talking about the issue is not going to make it go away. Put down the bong and figure that out.

[weatherbill]

Right now, the Fed is at war agaisnt the people. They just raided the Liberty Dollar head quarters and took all the ron paul liberty dollars with all the silver and gold......this is crime at the highest levels in government. There is a war going on for this nation. This criminals coming in the "color of law" must be stopped! I can;t beleive this shit is going on in America! I pray that Ron Paul gets in or this nation is going to hell.

[TVMH]

I had an interesting discussion at my Meetup last night about something along these same lines.

This guy suggested that we should only put forth our "good face" for the public, especially when trying to get involved in the [R] Party.

I suggested that our diversity is our strength...freedom brings us together, and all that.

I made mention of the fact that the polarization between the squares and hippies that existed in the 60's is not present today.

Today, the battle lines are more clearly defined between ideologies (i.e., statism vs. libertarianism).

Showing others that "we" attract people from all walks of life is a good thing.

We ended the discussion in agreement. :D

[ladyliberty]

RON PAUL WILL END THE WAR ON DRUGS

http://www.ontheissues.org/2008/Ron_Paul_Drugs.htm

Legalize industrial hemp
Paul believes in the legalization of industrial hemp. Paul supported HR 3037 to amend the Controlled Substances Act to exclude industrial hemp from the definition of marijuana. This bill would have given the states the power to regulate farming of hemp. The measure would be a first since the national prohibition of industrial hemp farming in the United States. He favors the legalization of marijuana.
Source: SourceWatch.org Jan 22, 2007

(note from me - coming from a state that was the leader in hemp production during WWII - it was used to make rope for the US Navy - I too support the legalization of INDUSTRIAL hemp. It will decrease our dependence on oil that is used to make nylon ropes today. This is not about a bunch of hippies sitting around a campfire getting stoned. Check out this website to see what all HEMP can be used for! http://www.artistictreasure.com/hempforvictory.html)

Voted NO on military border patrols to battle drugs & terrorism.
Amendment to set up a task force on counter-terrorism and drug interdiction and allow military personnel to help patrol U.S. borders.
Bill HR 2586 ; vote number 2001-356 on Sep 25, 2001

Voted NO on subjecting federal employees to random drug tests.
Drug Demand Reduction Act: Vote on an amendment to require that anyone hired by the Federal Government is subject to random, unannounced drug testing.
Reference: Amendment by Taylor, D-MS; bill by Portman, R-OH.; Bill HR 4550 ; vote number 1998-443 on Sep 16, 1998

War on Drugs has abused Bill of Rights .

Paul adopted the Republican Liberty Caucus Position Statement:
As adopted by the General Membership of the Republican Liberty Caucus at its Biannual Meeting held December 8, 2000.
WHEREAS libertarian Republicans believe in limited government, individual freedom and personal responsibility;
WHEREAS we believe that government has no money nor power not derived from the consent of the people;
WHEREAS we believe that people have the right to keep the fruits of their labor; and
WHEREAS we believe in upholding the US Constitution as the supreme law of the land;
BE IT RESOLVED that the Republican Liberty Caucus endorses the following [among its] principles:
While recognizing the harm that drug abuse causes society, we also recognize that government drug policy has been ineffective and has led to frightening abuses of the Bill of Rights which could affect the personal freedom of any American. We, therefore, support alternatives to the War on Drugs.

Per the tenth amendment to the US Constitution, matters such as drugs should be handled at the state or personal level.
All laws which give license to violate the Bill of Rights should be repealed.
Source: Republican Liberty Caucus Position Statement 00-RLC13 on Dec 8, 2000

Legalize medical marijuana.

Paul sponsored the States' Rights to Medical Marijuana Act:

Title: To provide for the medical use of marijuana in accordance with the laws of the various States. Summary: Transfers marijuana from schedule I of the Controlled Substances Act to schedule II of such Act. Declares that, in a State in which marijuana may be prescribed or recommended by a physician for medical use under applicable State law, no provision of the Controlled Substances Act shall prohibit or otherwise restrict:

* the prescription or recommendation of marijuana by a physician for medical use;
* an individual from obtaining and using marijuana from a physician's prescription or recommendation of marijuana for
medical use; or
* a pharmacy from obtaining and holding marijuana for the prescription or recommendation of marijuana by a physician
for medical use under applicable State law.

Prohibits any provision of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act from prohibiting or restricting a State entity from producing or distributing marijuana for the purpose of its distribution for prescription or recommendation by a physician in a State in which marijuana may be prescribed by a physician for medical use.
Source: House Resolution Sponsorship 01-HR2592 on Jul 23, 2001

Rated A by VOTE-HEMP, indicating a pro-hemp voting record.
Paul scores A by VOTE-HEMP on pro-hemp legalization policies

VOTE HEMP is a non-profit organization dedicated to the acceptance of and free market for Industrial Hemp. Industrial Hemp is non-psychoactive low THC varieties of the cannabis sativa plant. Currently, it is illegal for U.S. farmers to grow Industrial Hemp because it is improperly classified as a "drug" under the Controlled Substances Act. Since changes in law require shifts in thinking and this requires education in the facts, our primary goal is the education of legislators and regulators, farmers and businesses, students and other concerned citizens.

Source: VOTE-HEMP website 02n-HEMP on Dec 31, 2003

MORE GOVERNMENT INFO ABOUT HEMP:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vDLiHJFPWsM

Industrial Hemp Farming Act of 2007
Introduced in Congress

H.R. 1009 Would Give States Right to Regulate Farming of Versatile Hemp Crop

WASHINGTON, DC — For the second time since the federal government outlawed hemp farming in the United States, a federal bill has been introduced that would remove restrictions on the cultivation of non-psychoactive industrial hemp. The chief sponsor of H.R. 1009, the "Industrial Hemp Farming Act of 2007," is Representative Ron Paul (R-TX) and the nine original co-sponsors are Representatives Tammy Baldwin (D-WI), Barney Frank (D-MA), Raúl Grijalva (D-AZ), Maurice Hinchey (D-NY), Dennis Kucinich (D-OH), Jim McDermott (D-WA), George Miller (D-CA), Pete Stark (D-CA) and Lynn Woolsey (D-CA). The bill may be viewed online here.

"It is indefensible that the United States government prevents American farmers from growing this crop. The prohibition subsidizes farmers in countries from Canada to Romania by eliminating American competition and encourages jobs in industries such as food, auto parts and clothing that utilize industrial hemp to be located overseas instead of in the United States," said Dr. Paul. "By passing the Industrial Hemp Farming Act the House of Representatives can help American farmers and reduce the trade deficit — all without spending a single taxpayer dollar."

U.S. companies that manufacture or sell products made with hemp include Dr. Bronner's Magic Soaps, a California company who manufactures the number-one-selling natural soap, and FlexForm Technologies, an Indiana company whose natural fiber materials are used in over 2 million cars. Hemp food manufacturers such as French Meadow Bakery, Hempzels, Living Harvest, Nature's Path and Nutiva now make their products from Canadian hemp. Although hemp grows wild across the U.S., a vestige of centuries of hemp farming, the hemp for these products must be imported. Health Canada statistics show that 48,060 acres of industrial hemp were produced in Canada in 2006. Farmers in Canada have reported that hemp is one of the most profitable crops that they can grow. Hemp clothing is made around the world by well-known brands such as Patagonia, Bono's Edun and Giorgio Armani.

There is strong support among key national organizations for a change in the federal government's position on hemp. The National Association of State Departments of Agriculture (NASDA) "supports revisions to the federal rules and regulations authorizing commercial production of industrial hemp." The National Conference of State Legislatures (NCSL) has also passed a pro-hemp resolution.

Numerous individual states have expressed interest in industrial hemp as well. Fifteen states have passed pro-hemp legislation; seven (Hawaii, Kentucky, Maine, Maryland, Montana, North Dakota and West Virginia) have removed barriers to its production or research. North Dakota has issued state licenses, the first in fifty years, to two farmers so far. Rep. Paul's bill would remove federal barriers and allow laws in these states regulating the growing and processing of industrial hemp to take effect.

"Under the current national drug control policy, industrial hemp can be imported, but it can't be grown by American farmers," says Eric Steenstra, President of Vote Hemp. "The DEA has taken the Controlled Substances Act's antiquated definition of marijuana out of context and used it as an excuse to ban industrial hemp farming. The Industrial Hemp Farming Act of 2007 will bring us back to more rational times when the government regulated marijuana, but told farmers they could go ahead and continue raising hemp just as they always had," says Mr. Steenstra.

HERE IS A COPY OF THE ACTUAL BILL H.R. 1009:
http://www.votehemp.com/PDF/Hemp_Farming_Act_2007.pdf

Congressman Ron Paul
U.S. House of Representatives
June 28, 2002

Unintended Consequences of the Drug War

Mr. Speaker, I highly recommend the attached article "Unintended Consequences'' by Thomas G. Donlan, from Barron's magazine, to my colleagues. This article provides an excellent explanation of the way current federal drug policy actually encourages international terrorist organizations, such as Al Queda, to use the drug trade to finance their activities. Far from being an argument to enhance the war on drugs, the reliance of terrorist organizations upon the drug trade is actually one more reason to reconsider current drug policy. Terrorist organizations are drawn to the drug trade because federal policy still enables drug dealers to reap huge profits from dealing illicit substances. As Mr. Donlan points out, pursuing a more rational drug policy would remove the exorbitant profits from the drug trade and thus remove the incentive for terrorists to produce and sell drugs.

In conclusion, I once again recommend Mr. Donlan's article to my colleagues. I hope the author's explanation of how the war on drugs is inadvertently strengthening terrorist organizations will lead them to embrace a more humane, constitutional and rational approach to dealing with the legitimate problems associated with drug abuse.

From Barron's, June 24, 2002
UNINTENDED CONSEQUENCES
By Thomas G. Donlan

It's harvest time in Afghanistan. While the delegates to its grand council, the loya jurga, met under the great tent in Kabul and grudgingly acknowledged Hamid Karza as the president of a "transitional government,'' the impoverished farmers of Afghanistan reaped the rewards of their best cash crop, the despised opium poppy.

A few months ago, newspaper correspondents reported that the American proconsuls in Afghanistan had abandoned their hopes of reducing the opium harvest. They had considered buying the crop or paying farmers to destroy their poppies, but concluded that in the lawless Afghan hinterland they would simply be paying a bonus for non-delivery.
Karzai's previous "interim administration'' had banned opium production, but its writ did not run many miles beyond the city of Kabul. Warlords and provincial governors did as they pleased, and they were pleased to tax the opium trade and indeed participate in it as traders and transporters and protectors.

That's what the Taliban did for most of the years that the mullahs ruled and protected the al Qaeda terrorist network. In 2000, Afghanistan accounted for 71% of the world's opium supply. (Opium in turn is the building block for heroin, which most drug-fighters believe takes the greatest human toll and provides the greatest profit in the whole illicit industry.)
In 2001, the Taliban decreed an end to opium cultivation, not so much to carry favor with the West but to maintain the price: A bumper crop provided enough for two years of commerce. Indeed, the Taliban and al Qaeda may have earned more from their stockpiles in 2001 than they did from high production in 2000.

"As ye sow, so shall ye reap.'' The Biblical passage is an apt reminder that America's undercover agents nurtured Islamic fundamentalism to strengthen Afghan resistance to the Soviet Union. We reaped chaos in Afghanistan and a corps of well-trained fanatics bent on our destruction. America has also sown a war on drugs, and those same fanatics have harvested the profits.
This was not what we intended. Nor did we intend to let huge profits earned by terrorists and common criminals be used to corrupt police in every country where the trade reaches, including our own. Nor did we intend to put hundreds of thousands of Americans in prison for their participation in the drug trade. Nor did we intend to create periodic drug scarcities that turn addicts to crime to pay for their habits.

But all those things are unintended consequences of the war on drugs. Drug use is eventually a self-punishing mistake; the drug war turns out to be the same.

Now the war on drugs and the war on terrorism are beginning to look like two currents in a single river. Nearly half of the international terrorist groups on the State Department's list are involved in drug trafficking, either to raise money for their political aims or because successful drug commerce requires a ruthlessness indistinguishable from terrorism.

The currents don't always run together: The FBI and other federal law enforcement agencies acknowledge that the extra resources they are devoting to the detection and apprehension of terrorists are not new resources; the money agents and equipment come to the war on terror at the expense of the war on drugs.

In the domestic war on drugs, officials are trying to make the two currents serve their purposes. The government runs TV ads portraying young Americans confessing, "I killed grandmas. I killed daughters. I killed firemen. I killed policemen,'' and then warning the viewers, "Where do terrorists get their money? If you buy drugs, some of it may come from you.''

Bummer.

Like they wanted to do that? The buyers of drugs would be perfectly happy to buy them in a clean, well-lit store at reasonable prices, with the profits heavily taxed to support schools, medical benefits, or any other legitimate function of government- even police. That's how they buy cigarettes and liquor, neither of which finances international terrorists. (In a current prosecution, smuggling cigarettes from low-tax North Carolina to high-tax Michigan allegedly raised $1,500 for an alleged affiliate of Hamas. But big violence needs bigger sums from more lucrative sources.)

It was bad when drug laws gave the Mafia an opportunity to do big business. It was worse when the laws encouraged Colombian and Mexican drug cartels to obtain aircraft and heavy weapons. Now that the drug laws provide profits to people who want to kill Americans wholesale instead of retail, it's time to change the laws.

Using drugs is stupid enough; making the users finance international terrorists is even more foolish.

[Kapt Nemo]

Put down the bong and figure that out.

Not every pot smoker, or drug user is a lazy bastard... Some of them are even highly motivated people that have very good jobs and try their best to contribute to Society, however most have to keep their choice of recreation in the closet, because it's currently illegal... yet the legal ones tobacco and alcohol are far more harmful and account for more deaths per year than marijuana.

http://www.onmarijuana.com/wp-content/uploads/2007/03/comparingdangers.jpg


Anyways, I can't wait for Paul to take the oval office and bring about the changes needed in our country...

[johngr]

"Put down the bong" was meant as hyperbolic rhetoric. Don't take it literally but I know what you mean. Cannabis (marijuana is a word with racist origins) was demonized to protect oil, chemical and paper company profits. Big pharma doesn't want it legal now because they can't control it. It's a weed for crying out loud.

[reaver]

If industrialized hemp isn't legal in 17 years I'll look into an exploratory committee in 2024. Paper, Plastic, Fabric, and Fuel- 1 plant.