Convince me why Ron Paul (I am considering him)

[HarbingerOfTruth]

Before I start let me describe the kind of guy I am. I vehemently support the Iraq War. I don't think we should of gone in there (but back then, it seemed like the right thing to do) but I can't see us ditching the Iraq people like that. Already the Middle East is so messed up, and if we leave there will be genocide there. I mean, it's working in Afghanistan. Businesses are opening up, less deaths are happening there, and the Taliban are having a lot of trouble regrouping. So with that perspective, it seems Iraq can work. There are already signs of it working.

Though in foreign policy in general, I agree with Ron Paul. We are wasting money there and our army is being worn thin. I think those soldiers would be safer and more affective in America. They could be helping patrol our nation's borders instead of worrying of returning home in body bags. But then again, if we have sudden leave of troops, how would that affect us? A lot I would think. And what happens if a country like Taiwan is invaded by China? Should we really let them to fend off for themselves?

Economically I am somewhat worried with Ron Paul's stances. I mean, the gold standard? How can we just have that sudden change in currency, while eliminating tax as a whole!? The Fair Tax scares me a bit too. In another forum someone said "If you're a wealthy businessman or investor, the fairtax is a great idea. But if you're middle-class -- even upper-middle class -- and you're a Conservative, the fairtax essentially amounts to a massive tax hike which is stupid."

And for illegal immigration, I understand the notion "we shouldn't reward people who break the law." Morally I agree. But how should we send them back and still not ruin our economy? Does Ron Paul's plan assure it won't?

Ending the Drug War I am skeptical of too. While I admit it is not working, can we honestly legalize crystal meth? Cocaine? Some of the drugs made could really ruin lives. The potential of a large portion of Americans even just trying it once is extremely high, and unlike drinking or smoking a cigarette it can do real damage.

And now for the big concern. Will his movement continue after Ron Paul? Because right now, his chance of being elected is minimal. Ron Paul is an old guy, and his life in politics is coming to an abysmal close. I don't know one politician that has similar stances as he. Whats the point of jumping this band wagon (besides fighting for what you believe in) if everyone is going to jump off in the final stop?

And then there is experience. Currently my ideaologies in my opinion link with Fred Thompson but I am supporting Rudy Giuliani. A major reason is because of his experience, chance of beating the Democrats, and good representation of his party (by that, I mean unlike Bush he will defend himself and party if elected president).

Now, after reading that you wonder what I am doing here. Well, I actually do like Ron Paul a lot. He is an honest politician (one of the few), has a great and stable voting record, pro-life, brings new ideas to the table and more. His foreign policy really intrigues me, and his ideas in general are fascinating. I've been liking him more and more, and recently for some reason something plugged and now I am here. Should I support Ron Paul, and if so, why?

Thanks for taking the time to respond.

 

[t3rmin]

One quick point: Ron Paul isn't advocating the FairTax, so you can cross that off your list. ;-)

 

[HarbingerOfTruth]

One quick point: Ron Paul isn't advocating the FairTax, so you can cross that off your list. ;-)

Ok, then let me change it to eliminating the IRS and income tax.

 

[t3rmin]

One more: Ron Paul isn't advocating an abrupt currency change. He supports legalizing competing currencies, and shoring up our monetary policy in general.

People have this idea that he'll go slashing things willy-nilly, but he's got very realistic plans to implement his ideas. He doesn't approach anything rashly. Just because somebody has strong, uncompromising principles, doesn't mean he can't implement them gradually, or realistically, or whatever. Know what I mean?

 

[Deborah K]

I'm going to answer your questions with Ron Paul's own words:

1.

Congressman Ron Paul
U.S. House of Representatives
February 26, 2002


Before We Bomb Iraq...

The war drums are beating, louder and louder. Iraq, Iran, and North Korea have been forewarned. Plans have been laid and, for all we know, already initiated, for the overthrow and assassination of Saddam Hussein.

There's been talk of sabotage, psychological warfare, arming domestic rebels, killing Hussein, and even an outright invasion of Iraq with hundreds of thousands of US troops. All we hear about in the biased media is the need to eliminate Saddam Hussein, with little regard for how this, in itself, might totally destabilize the entire Middle East and Central Asia. It could, in fact, make the Iraq "problem" much worse.

The assumption is that, with our success in Afghanistan, we should now pursue this same policy against any country we choose, no matter how flimsy the justification. It hardly can be argued that it is because authoritarian governments deserve our wrath, considering the number of current and past such governments that we have not only tolerated but subsidized.

Protestations from our Arab allies are silenced by our dumping more American taxpayer dollars upon them.

European criticism that the United States is now following a unilateral approach is brushed off, which only causes more apprehension in the European community. Widespread support from the eager media pumps the public to support the warmongers in the administration.

The pro and cons of how dangerous Saddam Hussein actually is are legitimate. However, it is rarely pointed out that the CIA has found no evidence whatsoever that Iraq was involved in the terrorist attacks of 9/11.

Rarely do we hear that Iraq has never committed any aggression against the United States. No one in the media questions our aggression against Iraq for the past 12 years by continuous bombing and imposed sanctions responsible for the deaths of hundreds of thousands of children.

Iraq's defense of her homeland can hardly be characterized as aggression against those who rain bombs down on them. We had to go over 6,000 miles to pick this fight against a third-world nation with little ability to defend itself.

Our policies have actually served to generate support for Saddam Hussein, in spite of his brutal control of the Iraq people. He is as strong today- if not stronger- as he was prior to the Persian Gulf War 12 years ago.

Even today, our jingoism ironically is driving a closer alliance between Iraq and Iran, two long-time bitter enemies.

While we trade with, and subsidize to the hilt, the questionable government of China, we place sanctions on and refuse to trade with Iran and Iraq, which only causes greater antagonism. But if the warmongers' goal is to have a war, regardless of international law and the Constitution, current policy serves their interests.

Could it be that only through war and removal of certain governments we can maintain control of the oil in this region? Could it be all about oil, and have nothing to do with US national security?

Too often when we dictate who will lead another country, we only replace one group of thugs with another- as we just did in Afghanistan- with the only difference being that the thugs we support are expected to be puppet-like and remain loyal to the US, or else.

Although bits and pieces of the administration's plans to wage war against Iraq and possibly Iran and North Korea are discussed, we never hear any mention of the authority to do so. It seems that Tony Blair's approval is more important than the approval of the American people!

Congress never complains about its lost prerogative to be the sole declarer of war. Astoundingly, Congress is only too eager to give war power to our presidents through the back door, by the use of some fuzzy resolution that the president can use as his justification. And once the hostilities begin, the money always follows, because Congress fears criticism for not "supporting the troops." But putting soldiers in harm's way without proper authority, and unnecessarily, can hardly be the way to "support the troops."

Let it be clearly understood- there is no authority to wage war against Iraq without Congress passing a Declaration of War. HJ RES 65, passed in the aftermath of 9/11, does not even suggest that this authority exists. A UN Resolution authorizing an invasion of Iraq, even if it were to come, cannot replace the legal process for the United States going to war as precisely defined in the Constitution. We must remember that a covert war is no more justifiable, and is even more reprehensible.

Only tyrants can take a nation to war without the consent of the people. The planned war against Iraq without a Declaration of War is illegal. It is unwise because of many unforeseen consequences that are likely to result. It is immoral and unjust, because it has nothing to do with US security and because Iraq has not initiated aggression against us.

We must understand that the American people become less secure when we risk a major conflict driven by commercial interests and not constitutionally authorized by Congress. Victory under these circumstances is always elusive, and unintended consequences are inevitable.

__________________________________________________________________________

Fixing What’s Wrong With Iraq

May 21, 2007

Many of my colleagues, faced with the reality that the war in Iraq is not going well, line up to place all the blame on the president. The president “mismanaged” the war, they say. “It’s all the president’s fault,” they claim. In reality, much of the blame should rest with Congress, which shirked its constitutional duty to declare war and instead told the president to decide for himself whether or not to go to war.

More than four years into that war, Congress continues to avoid its constitutional responsibility to exercise policy oversight, particularly considering the fact that the original authorization no longer reflects the reality on the ground in Iraq .

According to the original authorization (Public Law 107-243) passed in late 2002, the president was authorized to use military force against Iraq to achieve the following two specific objectives only:

“(1) defend the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq ; and
(2) enforce all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq ”

I was highly critical of the resolution at the time, because I don’t think the United States should ever go to war to enforce United Nations resolutions. I was also skeptical of the claim that Iraq posed a “continuing threat” to the United States .

As it turned out, Iraq had no weapons of mass destruction, no al-Qaeda activity, and no ability to attack the United States . Regardless of this, however, when we look at the original authorization for the use of force it is clearly obvious that our military has met both objectives. Our military very quickly removed the regime of Saddam Hussein, against whom the United Nations resolutions were targeted. A government approved by the United States has been elected in post-Saddam Iraq , fulfilling the first objective of the authorization.

With both objectives of the original authorization completely satisfied, what is the legal ground for our continued involvement in Iraq ? Why has Congress not stepped up to the plate and revisited the original authorization?

This week I plan to introduce legislation that will add a sunset clause to the original authorization (Public Law 107-243) six months after passage. This is designed to give Congress ample time between passage and enactment to craft another authorization or to update the existing one. With the original objectives fulfilled, Congress has a legal obligation to do so. Congress also has a moral obligation to our troops to provide relevant and coherent policy objectives in Iraq .

Unlike other proposals, this bill does not criticize the president’s handling of the war. This bill does not cut off funds for the troops. This bill does not set a timetable for withdrawal. Instead, it recognizes that our military has achieved the objectives as they were spelled out in law and demands that Congress live up to its constitutional obligation to provide oversight. I am hopeful that this legislation will enjoy broad support among those who favor continuing or expanding the war as well as those who favor ending the war. We need to consider anew the authority for Iraq and we need to do it sooner rather than later.


source: www.ronpaullibrary.com

 

[RSLudlum]

This is quite a frequent response from people and all i can say is there won't be any "sudden" domestic policy changes, he has said again and again that he has transitional periods set up.

Anybody else want to chime in on this with more specifics.

 

[Deborah K]

2.

Congressman Ron Paul
U.S. House of Representatives
June 5, 2002



Gold and the Dollar


Mr. Speaker, I have for several years come to the House floor to express my concern for the value of the dollar. It has been, and is, my concern that we in the Congress have not met our responsibility in this regard. The constitutional mandate for Congress should only permit silver and gold to be used as legal tender and has been ignored for decades and has caused much economic pain for many innocent Americans. Instead of maintaining a sound dollar, Congress has by both default and deliberate action promoted a policy that systematically depreciates the dollar. The financial markets are keenly aware of the minute-by-minute fluctuations of all the fiat currencies and look to these swings in value for an investment advantage. This type of anticipation and speculation does not exist in a sound monetary system.

But Congress should be interested in the dollar fluctuation not as an investment but because of our responsibility for maintaining a sound and stable currency, a requirement for sustained economic growth.

The consensus now is that the dollar is weakening and the hope is that the drop in its value will be neither too much nor occur too quickly; but no matter what the spin is, a depreciating currency, one that is losing its value against goods, services, other currencies and gold, cannot be beneficial and may well be dangerous. A sharply dropping dollar, especially since it is the reserve currency of the world, can play havoc with the entire world economy.

Gold is history's oldest and most stable currency. Central bankers and politicians hate gold because it restrains spending and denies them the power to create money and credit out of thin air. Those who promote big government, whether to wage war and promote foreign expansionism or to finance the welfare state here at home, cherish this power.

History and economic law are on the side of the gold. Paper money always fails. Unfortunately, though, this occurs only after many innocent people have suffered the consequences of the fraud that paper money represents. Monetary inflation is a hidden tax levied more on the poor and those on fixed incomes than the wealthy, the bankers, or the corporations.

In the past 2 years, gold has been the strongest currency throughout the world in spite of persistent central bank selling designed to suppress the gold price in hopes of hiding the evil caused by the inflationary policies that all central bankers follow. This type of depreciation only works for short periods; economic law always rules over the astounding power and influence of central bankers.

That is what is starting to happen, and trust in the dollar is being lost. The value of the dollar this year is down 18 percent compared to gold. This drop in value should not be ignored by Congress. We should never have permitted this policy that was deliberately designed to undermine the value of the currency.

There are a lot of reasons the market is pushing down the value of the dollar at this time. But only one is foremost. Current world economic and political conditions lead to less trust in the dollar's value. Economic strength here at home is questionable and causes concerns. Our huge foreign debt is more than $2 trillion, and our current account deficit is now 4 percent of GDP and growing. Financing this debt requires borrowing $1.3 billion per day from overseas. But these problems are ancillary to the real reason that the dollar must go down in value. For nearly 7 years the U.S. has had the privilege of creating unlimited amounts of dollars with foreigners only too eager to accept them to satisfy our ravenous appetite for consumer items. The markets have yet to discount most of this monetary inflation. But they are doing so now; and for us to ignore what is happening, we do so at the Nation's peril. Price inflation and much higher interest rates are around the corner.

Misplaced confidence in a currency can lead money managers and investors astray, but eventually the piper must be paid. Last year's record interest rate drop by the Federal Reserve was like pouring gasoline on a fire. Now the policy of the past decade is being recognized as being weak for the dollar; and trust and confidence in it is justifiably being questioned.

Trust in paper is difficult to measure and anticipate, but long-term value in gold is dependable and more reliably assessed. Printing money and creating artificial credit may temporarily lower interest rates, but it also causes the distortions of malinvestment, overcapacity, excessive debt and speculation. These conditions cause instability, and market forces eventually overrule the intentions of the central bankers. That is when the apparent benefits of the easy money disappear, such as we dramatically have seen with the crash of the dot-coms and the Enrons and many other stocks.

Now it is back to reality. This is serious business, and the correction that must come to adjust for the Federal Reserve's mischief of the past 30 years has only begun. Congress must soon consider significant changes in our monetary system.

Congress must soon consider significant changes in our monetary system if we hope to preserve a system of sound growth and wealth preservation. Paper money managed by the Federal Reserve System cannot accomplish this. In fact, it does the opposite.

 

[RonPaul_SantaMonica]

Before I start let me describe the kind of guy I am. I vehemently support the Iraq War. I don't think we should of gone in there (but back then, it seemed like the right thing to do) but I can't see us ditching the Iraq people like that. Already the Middle East is so messed up, and if we leave there will be genocide there. I mean, it's working in Afghanistan. Businesses are opening up, less deaths are happening there, and the Taliban are having a lot of trouble regrouping. So with that perspective, it seems Iraq can work. There are already signs of it working.

We are paying the people not to kill us ( http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=17899543) . The British have left the south and hence killings have gone down there. Surge is not working the way people claim it is.

Though in foreign policy in general, I agree with Ron Paul. We are wasting money there and our army is being worn thin. I think those soldiers would be safer and more affective in America. They could be helping patrol our nation's borders instead of worrying of returning home in body bags. But then again, if we have sudden leave of troops, how would that affect us? A lot I would think. And what happens if a country like Taiwan is invaded by China? Should we really let them to fend off for themselves?

We ain't got the money to do anything anyway.

Economically I am somewhat worried with Ron Paul's stances. I mean, the gold standard? How can we just have that sudden change in currency, while eliminating tax as a whole!? The Fair Tax scares me a bit too. In another forum someone said "If you're a wealthy businessman or investor, the fairtax is a great idea. But if you're middle-class -- even upper-middle class -- and you're a Conservative, the fairtax essentially amounts to a massive tax hike which is stupid."

Watch http://video.google.com/videoplay?d...219&start=0&num=10&so=0&type=search&plindex=0

And for illegal immigration, I understand the notion "we shouldn't reward people who break the law." Morally I agree. But how should we send them back and still not ruin our economy? Does Ron Paul's plan assure it won't?

Our economy is already screwed. He does not claim his fix will be a bed of roses, but it is the only method in which we can get back out country. He is not making promises he cannot keep.

Ending the Drug War I am skeptical of too. While I admit it is not working, can we honestly legalize crystal meth? Cocaine? Some of the drugs made could really ruin lives. The potential of a large portion of Americans even just trying it once is extremely high, and unlike drinking or smoking a cigarette it can do real damage.

Use the hundreds of billions of dollars we spend on the drug war on helping people leave drugs. The drug war is not working.

And now for the big concern. Will his movement continue after Ron Paul? Because right now, his chance of being elected is minimal. Ron Paul is an old guy, and his life in politics is coming to an abysmal close. I don't know one politician that has similar stances as he. Whats the point of jumping this band wagon (besides fighting for what you believe in) if everyone is going to jump off in the final stop?

Every large movement starts with a small step. Dr. Paul is in excellent shape.

And then there is experience. Currently my ideaologies in my opinion link with Fred Thompson but I am supporting Rudy Giuliani. A major reason is because of his experience, chance of beating the Democrats, and good representation of his party (by that, I mean unlike Bush he will defend himself and party if elected president).

I can see the Thompson appeal, but Rudy baffles me. He does not understand the motivations of the people we are fighting, and he is going to make things worse.

Now, after reading that you wonder what I am doing here. Well, I actually do like Ron Paul a lot. He is an honest politician (one of the few), has a great and stable voting record, pro-life, brings new ideas to the table and more. His foreign policy really intrigues me, and his ideas in general are fascinating. I've been liking him more and more, and recently for some reason something plugged and now I am here. Should I support Ron Paul, and if so, why?

Thanks for taking the time to respond.

[/QUOTE]
Watch and read the above links. Feek free to ask more questions. I have been brief and will gladly elaborate.

 

[Deborah K]

3.

On Illegal Immigration and Border Security

Illegal immigration is on the forefront of many Americans’ minds lately and with good reason. The Center for Immigration Studies has recently reported that our immigrant population is now 37 million, up from 27 million in 1997. 1 in 3 of these immigrants are here illegally. We have a problem that has exploded in the last 10 years with no appreciable change in border security since September 11 when we were supposed to take a hard look at the problem.

We have security issues at home and our resources are running thin. Our education system is stretched, and immigration accounts for virtually all the national increase in public school enrollment in the last 2 decades. There is a worker present in 78% of immigrant households using at least one major welfare program, according to the same study. It’s no surprise then that often times these immigrants can afford to work for lower wages. They are subsidized by our government to do so.

Right now we are subsidizing a lot of illegal immigration with our robust social programs and it is an outrage that instead of coming to the United States as a land of opportunity, many come for the security guaranteed by government forced transfer payments through our welfare system. I have opposed giving federal assistance to illegal immigrants and have introduced legislation that ends this practice. In the last major House-passed immigration bill I attempted to introduce an amendment that would make illegal immigrants ineligible for any federal assistance. Unfortunately, that amendment was ruled "not relevant" to immigration reform. I believe it is very relevant to taxpayers, however, who are being taken advantage of through the welfare system. Illegal immigrants should never be eligible for public schooling, social security checks, welfare checks, free healthcare, food stamps, or any other form government assistance.

The anchor baby phenomenon has also been very problematic. Simply being born on US soil to illegal immigrant parents should not trigger automatic citizenship. This encourages many dangerous behaviors and there are many unintended consequences as a result of this blanket policy. I am against amnesty and I have introduced an amendment to the Constitution (H.J. Res 46) which will end this form of amnesty.

I have also supported the strengthening our border and increasing the number of border patrol agents. It is an outrage that our best trained border guards are sent to Iraq instead of guarding our borders. For national security, we need to give more attention to our own border which is being illegally breached every day, and yet the government shirks one of its few constitutionally mandated duties, namely to defend this country. Citizens lose twice with our current insecure border situation – we don’t have the protection we should have, and then taxpayers have to deal with the fallout in the form of overstretched public resources and loss of jobs.

The anger is understandable when it comes to illegal immigration and the problems with our borders. I will continue to fight in Congress for more effective ways to address these issues in keeping with the Constitutional mandate to protect America .

 

[loupeznik]

This is quite a frequent response from people and all i can say is there won't be any "sudden" domestic policy changes, he has said again and again that he has transitional periods set up.

Anybody else want to chime in on this with more specifics.

+1

I'm not sure that the President of the US has the authority to change everything over night on the domestic front. I'm sure we would see many more sudden changes on the foreign front, but even there the government moves slow. "as fast is possible" seems like a fair way to put it. That may mean years.

As much as we need Ron Paul as our president, we may be better served by by having four hundred of him in congress.

 

[t3rmin]

Ok, then let me change it to eliminating the IRS and income tax.

Takes us back to federal income levels of roughly ten years ago. The government has other sources of revenue. We didn't have an income tax before 1913 and we did fine. We've definitely got to make cutbacks to balance it out, but it's not so drastic when you really think about it. Cut the fat and we can easily do without the income tax.

 

[loupeznik]

...Besides, if you care about the Constitution, who else are you going to vote for?

 

[shadowhooch]

Regarding foreign policy....sure if you stay there long enough and throw enough of our taxpayer money at a problem, it will achieve temporary "stability". We are, afterall, the most powerful nation on earth. But unless you are willing to commit to staying....say forever, that is hardly an economically wise foreign policy.

Regarding defending other countries like Taiwan.....Ron Paul will be the President and he recognizes that it isn't the President's job to declare war. This is the duty of the Congress. So it comes down to this....if Taiwan is threatened and the American people through the Congress want us to take action, we will declare war, fight it, win it, and come home. That is how our country is supposed to work. That is the ONLY way to get the American people 100% behind the war and the only way to have a defined goals for victory. Also, we wouldn't be debating the merits of the war in Congress after-the-fact since they were the ones with the consensus to go to war.

Regarding the gold standard...I admit it is beyond my realm of thinking. But I do understand that printing money creates inflation. And I do recognize that the "competing currency" theory won a nobel prize in the 70's. Eh, it couldn't hurt.

Regarding illegal immigration...I don't think Ron Paul is so much for strict deportation. He wants to take an economical approach to take away the incentives to come here by deny them taxpayer-funded benefits and denying amnesty. Until you take away the incentives, you will never solve the problem.

All in all, Ron Paul is a man of the utmost consistency and integrity. He will follow the law of the land as a President and restore the Consitutional balance of government. That is what we need. Not another "decider" who does what they "feel is right" and stretches the boundaries the principles of this country.

Anyway, I hope you vote for Ron Paul.

 

[TheOraclePaul]

MANY good answers to your concerns

THE MOST IMPORTANT: To address your concerns regarding how the U.S. should not leave Iraq as it would be detrimental to them, THEY WANT US TO! Here is a link showing that 71+% of Iraqis want American troops out within a year! http://thinkprogress.org/2006/09/27/iraqis-poll/

Remember, Ron Paul was one of only a handful of people who had the foresight to not go to war against Iraq.

These two things among others should show you that his position is the most accurate and he deserves your vote!

 

[Deborah K]

4.

HON. RON PAUL OF TEXAS
BEFORE THE U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
February 12, 2004


Rush Limbaugh and the Sick Federal War on Pain Relief

Mr. Speaker, the publicity surrounding popular radio talk show host Rush Limbaugh’s legal troubles relating to his use of the pain killer OxyContin hopefully will focus public attention on how the federal drug war threatens the effective treatment of chronic pain. Prosecutors have seized Mr. Limbaugh’s medical records to investigate whether he violated federal drug laws. The fact that Mr. Limbaugh is a high profile, controversial, conservative media personality has given rise to speculation that the prosecution is politically motivated. Adding to this suspicion is the fact that individual pain patients are rarely prosecuted in this type of case.

In cases where patients are not high profile celebrities like Mr. Limbaugh, it is pain management physicians who bear the brunt of overzealous prosecutors. Faced with the failure of the war on drugs to eliminate drug cartels and kingpins, prosecutors and police have turned their attention to pain management doctors, using federal statutes designed for the prosecution of drug dealers to prosecute physicians for prescribing pain medicine.

Many of the cases brought against physicians are rooted in the federal Drug Enforcement Administration’s failure to consider current medical standards regarding the use of opioids, including OxyContin, in formulating policy. Opioids are the pharmaceuticals considered most effective in relieving chronic pain. Federal law classifies most opioids as Schedule II drugs, the same classification given to cocaine and heroin, despite a growing body of opinion among the medical community that opioids should not be classified with these substances.

Unfortunately, patients often must consume very large amounts of opioids to obtain long-term relief. Some prescriptions may be for hundreds of pills and last only a month. A prescription this large may appear suspicious. But according to many pain management specialists, it is medically necessary in many cases to prescribe a large number of pills to effectively treat chronic pain. However, zealous prosecutors show no interest in learning the basic facts of pain management.

This harassment by law enforcement has forced some doctors to close their practices, while others have stopped prescribing opioids altogether-- even though opioids are the only way some of their patients can obtain pain relief. The current attitude toward pain physicians is exemplified by Assistant US Attorney Gene Rossi’s statement that “Our office will try our best to root out [certain doctors] like the Taliban.”

Prosecutors show no concern for how their actions will affect patients who need large amounts of opioids to control their chronic pain. For example, the prosecutor in the case of Dr. Cecil Knox of Roanoke, Virginia, told all of Dr. Knox’s patients to seek help in federal clinics even though none of the federal clinics would prescribe effective pain medicine!

Doctors are even being punished for the misdeeds of their patients. For example, Dr. James Graves was sentenced to more than 60 years for manslaughter because several of his patients overdosed on various combinations of pain medications and other drugs, including illegal street drugs. As a physician with over thirty years of experience in private practice, I find it outrageous that a physician would be held criminally liable for a patient’s misuse of medicine.

The American Association of Physicians and Surgeons (AAPS), one of the nation’s leading defenders of medical freedom, recently advised doctors to avoid prescribing opioids because, according to AAPS, “drug agents set medical standards.” I would hope my colleagues would agree that doctors, not federal agents, should determine medical standards.

By waging this war on pain physicians, the government is condemning patients to either live with excruciating chronic pain or seek opioids from other, less reliable, sources-- such as street drug dealers. Of course opioids bought on the street likely will pose a greater risk of damaging a patient’s health than opioids obtained from a physician.

Finally, as the Limbaugh case reveals, the prosecution of pain management physicians destroys the medical privacy of all chronic pain patients. Under the guise of prosecuting the drug war, law enforcement officials can rummage through patients’ personal medical records and, as may be the case with Mr. Limbaugh, use information uncovered to settle personal or political scores. I am pleased that AAPS, along with the American Civil Liberties Union, has joined the effort to protect Mr. Limbaugh’s medical records.

Mr. Speaker, Congress should take action to rein in overzealous prosecutors and law enforcement officials, and stop the harassment of legitimate physicians who act in good faith when prescribing opioids for relief from chronic pain. Doctors should not be prosecuted for using their best medical judgment to act in their patients’ best interests. Doctors also should not be prosecuted for the misdeeds of their patients.

Finally, I wish to express my hope that Mr. Limbaugh’s case will encourage his many fans and listeners to consider how their support for the federal war on drugs is inconsistent with their support of individual liberty and constitutional government.

 

[Dr.3D]

Ron Paul is the only candidate who wants reduce the size and power of the Federal Government and let the individual states make their own decisions about how they want to live.

If you read the Constitution of the United States of America, you will see the blueprint of what Ron Paul wants to do. It is quite simple to understand Ron Paul after you understand the Constitution.

 

[Deborah K]

Here's another one for your fourth question:

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.

 

[specsaregood]

//

 

[Agora]

I find this to be great enough:

"Why Paul? Here's the top three from the list included with the CPO press release:

1. Never voted for a tax increase during his time in Congress.

2. Supports elimination of any program not specifically authorized by the constitution.

3. He'd bring the soldiers home, "not just from Iraq but also from 130 other countries where we have left them to languish."

 

[MoneyWhereMyMouthIs2]

Why would "HarbingerOfTruth" be asking to be convinced about Ron Paul?

Before I start let me describe the kind of guy I am. I vehemently support the Iraq War. I don't think we should of gone in there (but back then, it seemed like the right thing to do) but I can't see us ditching the Iraq people like that.

Sorry, man. You need to pick another candidate. What do you want to do for the Iraqi people? Bring them democracy? Iran too? At what point would you like to stop?

Ending the Drug War I am skeptical of too. While I admit it is not working, can we honestly legalize crystal meth? Cocaine? Some of the drugs made could really ruin lives. The potential of a large portion of Americans even just trying it once is extremely high, and unlike drinking or smoking a cigarette it can do real damage.

What do you mean by "real damage?" Is that from sanctioned establishment reports? I believe those reports to be true, but they sure don't forward your viewpoint. So, do you think we should ban alcohol and cigs? Huckabee's is in favor of a nationwide smoking ban, so I say you go in that direction.