Issue: War on Drugs - specifically Crystal Meth

[Alabama Supporter]

I am under no illusion that the current War on Drugs is working. I like some of his ideas of reform.

One drug I am absolutely terrified of is crystal meth. I imagine the prohibition on drugs has led to greater use of crystal meth. I'd like to know what you think Ron Paul's take is on combating this drug that turns people into zombies.

[BenIsForRon]

I'm pretty sure if you legalized all drugs, people would stop doing meth. The main reason people do meth is because it's cheaper and lasts longer than cocaine. So what would happen under a Ron Paul presidency is people would do cocaine if they wanted to do that kind of drug, and nobody would stop them because we would live in a free society. If they had a problem with it they could get help from a private organization, or they could keep doing lots of coke. Just like how some people continue to eat lots of hamburgers even if they're three hundred pounds, its their choice.

[ChooseLiberty]

It's still a big question of what would happen if people had access to every drug - apparently there are huge numbers of opium addicts in Afghanistan where they can get it easily.

Then aren't there some rat studies where the rats basically kill themselves for drugs. Maybe that was just propaganda.

I'm guessing some people with free access to drugs would take the drugs until they died just like some alcoholics do with booze now.

[BravoSix]

I'm pretty sure if you legalized all drugs, people would stop doing meth. The main reason people do meth is because it's cheaper and lasts longer than cocaine. So what would happen under a Ron Paul presidency is people would do cocaine if they wanted to do that kind of drug, and nobody would stop them because we would live in a free society.


I respectfully disagree.

Drugs, like any other product, would adhere to the market if they were completely de-regulated. If the lure for people to do Meth is the fact that it's cheap and has longer lasting effects, then they would continue to do Meth as legalizing all drugs would not change the motivation to do Meth.

[johnrocks]

Ron Paul is for taking the federal govt. out of the picture but the day that happens there will be 50 special sessions of the state legislatures ;if they aren't already in session; to make stat laws.

[Nefertiti]

I do have concerns about the effects that drugs would have on the people who use them and especially in how it might effect their behavior toward others negatively, if they were legalized. However, we already have legalized the worst drug of all-alcohol. And a big killer-cigarettes (although that is reducing recently).

What really needs to change in my opinion is the imprisonment of addicts, who are released back on the streets without attempts to help them kick the habit. With a criminal record, they then find it harder to find a job earning an honest living and resort to crime to continue their untreated drug habit and the cycle continues. More efforts need to be put into rehabilitation than into punishment for drug use. People sent to prison on drug charges should be sent to places where treatment is the primary focus.

[angelatc]

One drug I am absolutely terrified of is crystal meth. I imagine the prohibition on drugs has led to greater use of crystal meth. I'd like to know what you think Ron Paul's take is on combating this drug that turns people into zombies.

I think that if it were legal people who aren't using it still wouldn't use it. It would be harder for kids to get.

I just read today that apparently it's legal for women to walk around topless in NYC. Yet I've been to NYC several times, and I haven't seen a single woman walking around without a shirt on. Neither has my husband, much to his disappointment.

[richard1984]

Ron Paul ending the "War on Drugs" would allow communities to keep the savings and, therefore, allow the problem with meth to be dealt with more locally--where it is a problem. There would probably be more preventative measures taken, thus limiting demand.

Also, on the topic of "gateway drugs" and so forth, the legalization of drugs would put a serious hurting on the dealers (who deal more than just marijuana). Of course, the reason they call marijuana a "gateway drug" is because you have to buy it from blackmarket dealers, and often (especially after you've been a good customer) some dealers will start advertising what else they can sell. Before too long, once barriers are abandoned, curiosity often kicks in and people are more willing to "try new things." Hence, the "gateway" effect. But if marijuana were legalized, dealers would either cease to have to supplement their income with "other options," or would have to stop dealing all together (since most dealers make most of their money from selling marijuana).

I really think that a lot of people would be prevented from trying harder drugs if marijuana were legal. People will be more content with the safer options (e.g., cannabis) if they are no longer criminalized for their actions.

I think that the hard drug epidemic is more the result of the tension around drugs and drug use. People act retarded when they're scared.

[richard1984]

I just read today that apparently it's legal for women to walk around topless in NYC. Yet I've been to NYC several times, and I haven't seen a single woman walking around without a shirt on. Neither has my husband, much to his disappointment.

Wow. I had no idea. That's hilarious. And a very excellent point. A lot of the time, people are less likely to do certain things if they're aren't restrictions against them--i.e., people are more likely to do something if they are forbidden to do it. Again, it's the whole curiosity thing. (Note: what I just said only applies to certain situations and things.)

[Mesogen]

I'm pretty sure if you legalized all drugs, people would stop doing meth. The main reason people do meth is because it's cheaper and lasts longer than cocaine. So what would happen under a Ron Paul presidency is people would do cocaine if they wanted to do that kind of drug, and nobody would stop them because we would live in a free society. If they had a problem with it they could get help from a private organization, or they could keep doing lots of coke. Just like how some people continue to eat lots of hamburgers even if they're three hundred pounds, its their choice.

IMO, cocaine is actually worse than meth. They are both very bad, but I think cocaine is worse because it's very subtle in the ways it changes your brain (permanently).

The War on Drugs is totally crap, and there are some drugs I'm fine with being illegal, like the really hard ones (coke, heroin, meth) but others are relatively harmless (pot, shrooms).

De-criminalization is the idea for me. It's a public health problem, not a criminal problem.

The War on Drugs only makes the problem worse.

[BenIsForRon]

I respectfully disagree.

Drugs, like any other product, would adhere to the market if they were completely de-regulated. If the lure for people to do Meth is the fact that it's cheap and has longer lasting effects, then they would continue to do Meth as legalizing all drugs would not change the motivation to do Meth.


What I meant is that right now meth is a lot cheaper. After legalization, cocaine would be within more peoples price range (since it won't have to go through the black market), so meth use would go down. I don't know anybody who would prefer meth to coke if cocaine didn't cost $50 a gram, it really is a nasty drug.

[constituent]

What amazes me the most is the manner in which the fear is constantly peddled. The DEA (DHS) is always out advertising some "new most dangerous, most addictive, best thing out there, try before you buy" product that is almost never new-in this case "crystal meth" formerly known by the OTC and prescription trade name "methedrine" and is still used medically for the treatment of several disorders- and doesn't represent any actual change in demand, but rather a change in which market they have the corner on.

So quit fearing the dark shadow lurking behind the doorway, stairs, whatever... realize that this is all a sham-today's junk is tomorrow's treasure-, and get informed about the politics and economics of continually paying to lose this costly (in terms of dollars, lives, and families) "war" on drugs. Fighting drugs is just as futile as fighting poverty, terrorism, crime, or communism You cannot rid the world of certain behaviors, prevent the use of certain tactics, nor stomp out ideas. These are natural extensions of the human condition and cannot be driven out by force alone.

[SeekLiberty]

As far as I can see, meth is absolutely the worst drug ever created.

I lost a friend from it, after desparately trying to help her get off of it several times.

The drug is a human trap, which is virtually impossible to get out of. It turns one literally into a sociopath who totally loses their "conscience" ... the most evil thing that could happen from the gates of hell. This is not how she used to be.

I believe in our inalienable Right and Freedom for one to do what they want to their own body. It's THEIR property. However, making the wrong decisions for their body and mind, one can suffer the heavy consequences like she did.

Making the drug illegal did not stop her from doing it. It only made her more sly, and make her more willing to do anything to get it.

When she first took it, she was not aware of the following poem below. Had she known about it and read it, she said she would have never tried it.

The poem describes what happened to her exactly. She would have me read it to her when she was off the drug for awhile, when her conscience returned to her, and she would cry. But the cravings for the drug again and again overcame her, and I finally lost her.

I think EDUCATION is part of the answer.

Also, had we been in a Free, thriving, prosperous society, I don't think people who get sad would even desire to take drugs. They'd be already high on life!

Having a restored Republic would likely prevent MUCH drug abuse. The ripple effect, throughout our society, of a Free Society would solve many problems today. I have many reasons to help make this happen. She is one of them.

Because she was the love of my life that I lost. :-(

- SL

Here's the poem that I encourage everybody to print and give to everybody they know. Maybe they can save a life.

"Ms. Crystal Meth" (AKA "I am Meth")

"I destroy homes. I tear families apart. I take your children, and
that's just the start. I'm more valued than diamonds, more precious
than gold. The sorrow I bring is a sight to behold.

If you need me, remember; I'm easily found. I live all around you,
in school and in town. I live with the rich. I live with the poor. I live
just down the road, maybe next door.

I'm made in a lab, but, not in one like you think. I can be made
under your kitchen sink. Or in your child's closet, and even out in
the woods. It this scares you to death, it certainly should.

I have many names, but there's one you'll know best. I'm sure
you've heard of me: My name's Crystal Meth. My power is awesome.
Try me, you'll see. But if you do, you may never break free. Just
try me once, and I might let you go. But if you try me twice, then I own
your soul.

When I possess you, you'll steal and you'll lie. You'll do what you
have to, just to get high. The crimes you'll commit for my narcotic
charms will be worth the pleasure you'll feel in my arms.

You'll lie to your mother. You'll steal from your dad. When you see
their tears you must not feel sad. Just forget your morals, and how
you were raised. I'll be your conscience. I'll teach you my ways.

I take kids from their parents. I take parents from kids. I turn
people from God. I separate friends. I'll take everything from you;
even your good looks, and your pride. I'll be with you always, right
there by your side.

You'll give up everything; your family, your home, your money, your
friends. You'll be all alone. I'll take and I'll ake, 'til you've no more
to give. When I finish with you, you'll be lucky to live.

If you try me, be warned: THIS IS NOT A GAME. If I'm given the
chance, I'll drive you insane. I'll ravage your body. I'll control your
mind. I'll own you completely. Your soul will be mine.

The nightmares I'll give you when you're lying in bed. And the
voices you'll hear, from inside your head. The sweats, the shakes,
and the visions you'll see; I want you to know these are your gifts.
From me.

By then it's too late, and you'll know in your heart that you are now
mine, and we shall not part. You'll regreat that you tried me. (They
always do.) But you came to me, not I to you.

You knew this would happen. How many times were you told? But
you challenged my power. You chose to be bold. You could have
said 'no', and then walked away. If you could live that day over,
now what would you say?

My power is awesome, as I told you before. I can take your mother
and turn her into a whore.

I'll be your master and you'll be my slave. I'll even go with you
when you go to your grave.

Now that you've met me, what will you do? Will you try me or not?
It's all up to you. I can show you more misery than words can tell.

Come, take my hand, and let me lead you to Hell."

- Samantha Reynolds, as published by the "The Heavener Ledger" in September 2000

Recommended reading:

"The Sociopath Next Door" by Martha Stout

http://www.amazon.com/Sociopath-Next-Door-Martha-Stout/dp/0767915828/ref=pd_bbs_sr_1/002-8267830-3940011?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1183515297&sr=8-1

"Political Ponerology (A Science on the Nature of Evil Adjusted for Political Purposes)" by Andrzej M. Lobaczewski

http://www.amazon.com/Political-Ponerology-Science-Adjusted-Purposes/dp/1897244258/ref=pd_bbs_sr_1/002-8267830-3940011?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1183515548&sr=1-1

[Nefertiti]

I'm not sure total legalization is the answer. That poem says what I am thinking well. Drugs, in a sense, take away a person's freedom because the addiction comes to control the person's actions. While the decision to take them in the first place may be a freely taken decision, once someone starts they lose the freedom to be able to stop. When this country was founded, alcohol was the only drug available, and although its effects are terrible, it isn't quite as addictive as the other things. This is one of those kinds of issues that I don't think the founders could have imagined would come to pass and it requires some modern solutions. I think preventing people from getting addicted in the first place is actually preserving their freedom. We still need to come down hard on the dealers and the producers-along the lines of what Mexico proposed last year.

[richard1984]

As far as I can see, meth is absolutely the worst drug ever created.

Absolutely. I have some college friends from a county in middle-west Tennessee that has a big meth problem. I've seen "before and after" pictures of some of their high school classmates (people they grew up with), and after a year or more of using meth, some of these people look like sickly elderly people--not late teens/early twenties aged people. It's really horrendous. They literally poison themselves to death. And it's so hard on everyone around them.

[angelatc]

Anybody ever read Dr Benjamin Spock'sbaby books? His theory on raising kids, in reference to drugs, was that most people grow out of it between age 25 - 30. Some don't make it that far, and some stay hooked for life. But most give it up between age 25-30.

I'm too old to know meth. BUt I do know that back before my day, there was heroin. That generation lost a few, most people grew out of it. In my day it was coke and crack. We lost a few, most of us grew out of it.

I'm hard pressed to believe that the meth trend is any different.

[Wyurm]

1) first scan through this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_on_Drugs

2) you cant save people that dont want to be saved, and you have to come to terms with that. Trust me, if they dont want to quit using drugs no law, jail, intervention, rehab, promises, etc... will stop them (users).

3) There is no cure-all, but on the other hand, the war on drugs only benefits those making a profit off the drugs.

[Mesogen]

Oh let's not forget this classic.

http://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=ron%20paul%20morton%20downey&search=Search

[Gee]

Some of the cosmetic changes caused by crystal meth use aren't from the drug itself, but rather the impurities and crap that make their way into the street drugs.

Anyways, its not like the drug isn't widely available now. I seriously doubt most people are more than 2 or 3 degrees of separation away from nearly any drug they might want.

[CurtisLow]

The count down...

Most dangerous drugs
Research recently published in the medical journal The Lancet rates the most dangerous drugs (starting with the worst) as follows:

1. Heroin
2. Cocaine
3. Barbiturates
4. Street methadone
5. Alcohol
6. Ketamine
7. Benzodiazepines
8. Amphetamine
9. Tobacco
10. Buprenorphine
11. Cannabis
12. Solvents
13. 4-MTA
14. LSD
15. Methylphenidate
16. Anabolic steroids
17. GHB
18. Ecstasy
19. Alkyl nitrates
20. Khat

[Nathan Pannbacker]

Why did they rank cannabis as more dangerous than anabolic steroids? That doesn't jive with what I've heard about either drug.

[torchbearer]

Ummm.. cannabis at number 11? who made this list and off of what government mandated order?

[richard1984]

Yeah. That list is all kinds of messed up.
For example, there isn't one recorded death from cannabis consumption. But good Lord, everything listed after cannabis (except, maybe, for khat) has a potential for death from overdose. So how do they justify themselves?

[SeekLiberty]

The count down...

Most dangerous drugs
Research recently published in the medical journal The Lancet rates the most dangerous drugs (starting with the worst) as follows:

1. Heroin
2. Cocaine
3. Barbiturates
4. Street methadone
5. Alcohol
6. Ketamine
7. Benzodiazepines
8. Amphetamine
9. Tobacco
10. Buprenorphine
11. Cannabis
12. Solvents
13. 4-MTA
14. LSD
15. Methylphenidate
16. Anabolic steroids
17. GHB
18. Ecstasy
19. Alkyl nitrates
20. Khat

I think there's something strange about that list too. Crystal Meth is by far more addictive and dangerous than Heroin and cocaine. That's why it's called the Devils drug. Neither Heroin or cocaine totally strip one of the conscience and turns one into a psychopath. Crystal meth does.

- SL

[Nathan Pannbacker]

Yeah. That list is all kinds of messed up.
For example, there isn't one recorded death from cannabis consumption. But good Lord, everything listed after cannabis (except, maybe, for khat) has a potential for death from overdose. So how do they justify themselves?

It's easier to overdose on khat than it is to overdose on LSD, which is completely nontoxic. I'm not sure you can actually harm yourself with either though. Not directly. LSD has some danger in that it's a potent hallucinogen, but no direct damage potential.

[Kuldebar]

There's no doubt that some mind altering drugs are inherently more dangerous to use than others. We shouldn't forget a market dynamic...albeit, a black market dynamic, essentially drives the consumers of these products from one choice to another based on the same factors that regular consumers have to respond to everyday: availability, price, performance and risk. The whole scene has been perverted beyond measure with the heavy foot of prohibition.

http://www.drugcrazy.com/
http://www.drugcrazy.com/pix/cover.gif

[richard1984]

It's easier to overdose on khat than it is to overdose on LSD, which is completely nontoxic. I'm not sure you can actually harm yourself with either though. Not directly. LSD has some danger in that it's a potent hallucinogen, but no direct damage potential.

I imagine it would be more difficult to cause significant harm using khat than LSD, though. I mean, at least with khat, it seems like if someone chewed too much they'd either get sick or choose not to stop intake due to side-effects (like shaking, nausea, etc. I assume, since it's a stimulant). (Of course, I don't know very much at all about khat.)
Too much LSD, though, while it may not be physically damaging, is without a doubt potentially psychologically detrimental. Also, its effects are definitely impairing, increasing the risk for injury. I think that these factors contribute to LSD being more dangerous than khat.

[angelatc]

I must be getting old. I haven't heard of khat.

[constituent]

How did LSD beat Ritalin for most dangerous? I doubt the president ever took LSD, and look where he has gotten us.

[constituent]

khat isn't really the problem it is the semi-synthetic trans-4-methylaminorex that is derived from the leaves.

[richard1984]

You haven't heard of khat because it's not very well known in America.

http://www.erowid.org/plants/khat/khat.shtml

I wish there was more research done on it, though. I have ADHD and am prescribed Adderall. I really hate Adderall, though. It changes my personality--turns me into a moody asshole--and my ability to function socially, etc. Without it, though, I wouldn't have been able to stay in school (even though my IQ is above a 130). It's very frustrating. It would be great to have a fast acting medicine with a shorter half-life (perhaps something like khat), so that I could better control my dose. Also, marijuana is a very effective medication for (some people with) ADHD. For some reason, many drugs affect the person with ADHD differently than most people. For example, stimulants calm me down. And my grades (especially on tests) actually improve when I use cannabis (I'm talking from Cs to B+s and As)--something that I only discovered about a year ago.
But, as with many things in America today, the people in power don't want us to know the truth.
It'll be a wonderful day when people can actually get the medicine they need.

[SeanEdwards]

I'd like to know what you think Ron Paul's take is on combating this drug that turns people into zombies.

A legitimate libertarian position against meth is the danger illegal meth labs pose to their neighbors through their toxic chemical pollution and danger of explosion.

If morons want to zombiefy themselves, that is no business of government. When zombies attack others, then government has a role in protecting the innocent. People who destroy themselves with drugs are not innocents.

[richard1984]

A legitimate libertarian position against meth is the danger illegal meth labs pose to their neighbors through their toxic chemical pollution and danger of explosion.

If morons want to zombiefy themselves, that is no business of government. When zombies attack others, then government has a role in protecting the innocent. People who destroy themselves with drugs are not innocents.

Good call. Cooking meth is highly dangerous. And a lot of the time there are little kids living in houses with meth labs. I can't think of any other drug that is so dangerous to prepare. So that's a very good argument against the legalization of meth.

[Oddball]

I am under no illusion that the current War on Drugs is working. I like some of his ideas of reform.

One drug I am absolutely terrified of is crystal meth. I imagine the prohibition on drugs has led to greater use of crystal meth. I'd like to know what you think Ron Paul's take is on combating this drug that turns people into zombies.Keep in mind that crystal meth probably wouldn't even exist under a context of decrim/legalization any more than bath tub gin does in absence of alcohol prohibition.

[johnrocks]

Keep in mind that crystal meth probably wouldn't even exist under a context of decrim/legalization any more than bath tub gin does in absence of alcohol prohibition.

:) how many self rollers are there in the tobacco smoking market for that matter!!