Drug position

[Mastiff]

What is Paul's actual drug position? I hear all the anti-Paul pieces saying he wants to decriminalize for personal use. I hope his position is a little more nuanced. I imagine he'd want to abolish federal drug laws and leave it to the states? But even at that, I hope he isn't adding rhetoric to the effect that it would be good for the states to leave things like crack and meth unregulated.

Philosophically, I agree with the hardcore libertarian idea that it's wrong to criminalize the purely personal decisions of the drug end-user. Dealers, however, I find to be predatory, and an almost 100% negative influence. Perhaps Paul is saying that he wouldn't arrest people for using, but would still criminalize dealing?

Another issue where Paul could use clarification for image control, IMO.

 

[Sematary]

What is Paul's actual drug position? I hear all the anti-Paul pieces saying he wants to decriminalize for personal use. I hope his position is a little more nuanced. I imagine he'd want to abolish federal drug laws and leave it to the states? But even at that, I hope he isn't adding rhetoric to the effect that it would be good for the states to leave things like crack and meth unregulated.

Philosophically, I agree with the hardcore libertarian idea that it's wrong to criminalize the purely personal decisions of the drug end-user. Dealers, however, I find to be predatory, and an almost 100% negative influence. Perhaps Paul is saying that he wouldn't arrest people for using, but would still criminalize dealing?

Another issue where Paul could use clarification for image control, IMO.

He would end the federal "war on drugs" and, as you alluded to, leave the issue to the states, as the constitution demands.

 

[BillyDkid]

He would end the federal "war on drugs" and, as you alluded to, leave the issue to the states, as the constitution demands.

But he has also said that the government has no business telling us what to do with our own bodies.

 

[pcosmar]

He called for "an end of the drug war" it is a failed policy the costs billions.
I agree. it has cost money, lives,and liberty and has no effect on whether or not people use.
Scrap it as a bad idea. treat addiction as a medical problem.

 

[nexalacer]

Philosophically, I agree with the hardcore libertarian idea that it's wrong to criminalize the purely personal decisions of the drug end-user. Dealers, however, I find to be predatory, and an almost 100% negative influence. Perhaps Paul is saying that he wouldn't arrest people for using, but would still criminalize dealing?

Do you think if drugs were legal, there would be such a thing as "dealers", other than your local neighborhood pharmacy? If so, why?

 

[Mastiff]

Do you think if drugs were legal, there would be such a thing as "dealers", other than your local neighborhood pharmacy? If so, why?

Walgreens would never sell meth or crack. I doubt any normal storefront would. Frankly, I find the whole idea inconceivable. No state or local government would ever, ever tolerate crack and meth kiosks on Main street selling to 13 year olds.

I stand by my original statement though, regardless of whether the dealer is a street pusher, or Walgreens in conjunction with a TV ad campaign.

I really just want to know Paul's position though.

 

[nexalacer]

Walgreens would never sell meth or crack. I doubt any normal storefront would. Frankly, I find the whole idea inconceivable. No state or local government would ever, ever tolerate crack and meth kiosks on Main street selling to 13 year olds.

I stand by my original statement though, regardless of whether the dealer is a street pusher, or Walgreens in conjunction with a TV ad campaign.

I really just want to know Paul's position though.

Walgreens sold "meth" for years... sudafed. Cocaine used to be sold in coca-cola. These drugs have been altered by being in the black market, just as gin became a lot more dangerous when it was made in bath tubs in the 30s.

The question is not about varieties of drugs, but drugs in general. And it still stands, do you think there would be a street pusher for drugs? If so, why? Also, tobacco and alcohol are extremely hazardous to our health, yet Walgreens sells them and there are plenty of ads for these products... do you support stricter regulations on them as well? If so, why?

I ask because perhaps if Dr. Paul's position isn't what you want to hear, yet you philosophically agree with libertarian views that all drugs should be legal, you would not have a problem with Dr. Paul's position. I honestly don't know the answer to that question though, if you get a chance, I'd suggest asking Dr. Paul. He sounds like a guy that is very approachable.

 

[plopolp]

It is "war on SOME drugs".
Ron Paul is running for president and has a program for federal policy. States should be allowed to regulate drugs, unless it is conflicting with their constitutions.

Dealers profit only fron the monpopoly on drugs which the government has given them. Deregulation would make drugs dirt cheap an thus eliminate all crimes committed to finance drug addicts. It would also become much easier to find help against drug addiction.

And remember that the talibans in Afghanistan still profit billions from dominating the world heroin trade! Wars failed. Liberty would succeed. No one would buy expensive drugs made by terrorists in Afghanistan, if you could make them yourself or buy them from a certified medical company. Deregulation would put the talibans and the maffia and the drug dealers completely out of business. They are all totally dependent on the western world's "war on some drugs".

 

[Man from La Mancha]

Get the fricking government out of my life period. At Fed or state level. If some one wants any kind of chosen poison that is their right, but I suppose they will have to pay higher insurance rates. By legalizing all drugs including meth or crack one will have be an involved and good parent to teach their children not to do it. That means to be responsible for their education and not shipping them off to state schools with all the the low life peer pressure. If you can't handle the responsibilities of parent don't have children. no prohibition=no gangs and pushers. The Netherlands have a more liberal few on drugs and they have less drug use than the US.

.

 

[Corydoras]

I hope he isn't adding rhetoric to the effect that it would be good for the states to leave things like crack and meth unregulated.

He isn't. The gist of his position is fundamentally about dietary supplements, nutraceuticals, and alternative medicine.

 

[Mastiff]

You guys all sound like rank and file libertarians; I know there's no convincing you of anything where this topic is concerned. I just think you guys are coming at it from a totally one sided perspective. Yes, there's something not right about punishing people for doing things that only affect them. Fine.

But now look at it from the perspective of the dealers and distributors of drugs, whoever they may be. I contend that you'd be hard pressed to find a single person, ever, who uses meth and thinks he made a wise choice. If a dealer encourages someone to use meth, either by street pushing or advertising on TV, he is doing damage. He is causing harm to people by causing more people to use the drug than otherwise would. Likewise for anyone involved in the supply chain. They are causing harm.

I take the point about alcohol and cigarettes, but especially in the case of alcohol, I believe that it is a net positive. On balance, people get more enjoyment out of responsible use compared to the health and alcoholism costs. I think there are lots of people who go through their lives enjoying smoking too. Whether cigarettes are on balance a positive or negative, I'm not sure. I'd put pot in the same basic category as cigarettes though.

If you could come up with a system that could naturally sort all this out with some sort of liability rule, I'd be all for it. In the end though, a properly functioning rule of that sort would have the same effect as prohibition when it comes to the hard drugs, I think.

 

[Mastiff]

He isn't. The gist of his position is fundamentally about dietary supplements, nutraceuticals, and alternative medicine.

Do you have a link or anything? I found lots of stuff to do with state's rights regarding medical marijuana, but no real reference to hard drugs.

I'm thinking of writing an article like "Ron Paul: More moderate than you think", that would go beyond the sound bites on specific issues like drugs, guns on airplanes, abolishing the IRS and DO-Ed, abortion (going to the states vs. federal ban), getting rid of the Fed, and so on. I want to have backup for stuff though.

 

[Corydoras]

Do you have a link or anything? I found lots of stuff to do with state's rights regarding medical marijuana, but no real reference to hard drugs.

What I mean to say is that whenever he talks about people having the right to put substances in their bodies, he ALWAYS puts it in the context of dietary supplements, medical marijuana, and the like, as here:
http://www.ronpaul2008.com/issues/health-freedom/

Also, I forgot to mention above, pain treatment:
http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul173.html

When he writes about the drug war, yes, he is talking about the futility of fighting things like the growth of opium poppies BUT IN THE CONTEXT OF the "legitimate problems associated with drug abuse."
http://www.ronpaullibrary.org/document.php?id=689

What he isn't saying but what I'm gathering from reading him is that there is a real problem finding a "bright line" between helpful and harmful use of substances. I would say, for example, that huffing solvents is a real problem in terms of substances of abuse, but we can't ban gasoline, even though I have read reports that in some places kids go around with soda cans half full of gasoline so they can stay high all day.

 

[DocGrimes]

My basic understanding of his position is this:

1) He doesn't think the Feds should be involved regulating it. Simply no constitutional authority to do so.

2) On a personal level would encourage folks to not get into drugs, but realizes that such decisions are (or should be) up to the individual.

3) Ones liberty to do drugs (or anything else) is limited by it's effects on other peoples liberty. ie Harm someone by drinking and driving then you are responsible for the damages. Harm kids through drugs then you are responsible for damages. But if I do something, drink, drugs, jump off a building, ect, and harm only myself, then it is my own business so long as I do not infringe upon someone else.

Ron is not in favor of 'hard' drugs on a personal or moral level. He simply does not seek to unconstitutionally limit our liberty to make poor choices.

 

[Corydoras]

Ultimately, isn't substance abuse and its social effects on the surrounding people something best handled through medical and social services, as with alcohol-- with law enforcement stepping in when there are violence, accidents, and the like? I mean, when someone slugs a kid because s/he's drunk or high, does that make it any more or less an assault than when cold sober?

 

[plopolp]

All humans and animals and even plants, use drugs. It is physically impossible to stop that. And cocaine can be as much fun to use occasionally as alcohol. Both are very dangerous. Why should one be legal and not the other? Should alcohol be forbidden again? Wasn't Chicago nearly overtaken by the maffia during the "war on alcohol" in the 1920s?

Much more important than the use and misuse of party drugs (which politics never has been able to influence anyway), however, is the regulation of use of medicin. People are dying and suffering at the same time as there are drugs under development which would likely help them. And the government forbids them to try it!

 

[Rich333]

Dealers, however, I find to be predatory, and an almost 100% negative influence.

Those who deal in guns, drugs, prostitution, and any other victimless non-crimes perform an extremely valuable service to the community, by providing on the black market what the "legal" market is prohibited (under threat of government violence) to provide to the consumer. They help to undermine the state and its systematic violation of individual rights; I don't view that as a negative influence.

 

[Rich333]

But now look at it from the perspective of the dealers and distributors of drugs, whoever they may be. I contend that you'd be hard pressed to find a single person, ever, who uses meth and thinks he made a wise choice.

Even if that were so, it's still a choice he made.

If a dealer encourages someone to use meth, either by street pushing or advertising on TV, he is doing damage. He is causing harm to people by causing more people to use the drug than otherwise would. Likewise for anyone involved in the supply chain. They are causing harm.

No, they're offering people choices. That's all. Every individual is responsible for their own actions. If someone tells me it's a good idea to jump off a bridge, I'm not going to do it because I have a mind of my own and am perfectly capable of ignoring them and making my own decisions.

 

[Corydoras]

They help to undermine the state and its systematic violation of individual rights; I don't view that as a negative influence.

I would argue that the black market merely encourages the state to violate individual rights more vigorously, in the name of prohibition.

Also, I think that the black market is rife with violence, and this violence is not victimless.

 

[plopolp]

Also, I think that the black market is rife with violence, and this violence is not victimless.

Only because the state initiates violence against everyone who participates in that black market, instead of upholding their rights. After deregulation, the drug market would not be more violent that the market for teddy bears.