Drug position

[Mastiff]

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

They are not only offering choices, they are encouraging people to do something that is almost without exception damaging. The free market ceases to be efficient when people can profit by doing thing that are, on balance, harmful.

If they used Spider-man in TV ads, encouraging children to start using meth, would you not find that the slightest bit morally problematic?

And seriously, what's the end game for you guys? In your ideal world, is there a corner store selling crack, meth, prescription pain killers, ADD meds, anti-depressants, anti-biotics and everything else to all comers, regardless of age? Somehow I don't find this essential to a free society.

To your specific bridge example, yes, if your friends encourage you to jump off a bridge, they are to some extent responsible. You bear the bulk of the responsibility, but they aren't without some blame.

 

[Zarxrax]

Things like meth and crack are not going to become legal when Ron Paul is elected president. Every community can set it's own standards and regulations. Gambling is illegal in most states, but that's not determined by the federal government. Heck, around here it's illegal to buy alcohol on Sundays before a certain time of day.

 

[Corydoras]

seriously, what's the end game for you guys?

OK, I can agree with you about antibiotics and antivirals. I am much, much more worried than RP about bacterial and viral resistance, and also emerging diseases. I don't share his worries about pandemic control damaging national sovereignty.

And I know the hemp crowd may have other ideas about what the world might look like with fewer substance restrictions. And I admit, I'm NOT a doctor or nurse or pharmacist.

But MY vision is of a world where patients with nerve damage can work because their physicians can give them massive enough pain medication to function and maybe enough work without worrying about the DEA imprisoning them... a world where bipolar patients can take combinations of minerals and vitamins that studies show there may be some evidence works with less risk of renal damage than lithium, without worrying that the FDA is going to shut down the company for advertising... a world where patients with wasting disorders can smoke marijuana to stimulate their appetites so that they can stay independent longer... yes, even a world where cancer patients can get heroin when their minds are fogged by pain and fentanyl isn't enough to keep them clear-headed...

A world where substances can get enough respect and private money to be studied thoroughly, like omega-3 fatty acids for ADD... where stevia doesn't have to be sold as a "dietary supplement" to be used as sweetener...

And dammit, yes, a world where you don't have to have a doctor for a friend to get terpin hydrate or modafinil or tramadol when you need it, where you can get statins over the counter and not have to pay $350 to see a doctor for a prescription...

What about a world where junkies don't end up in the hospital on state-funded Medicaid with hep C and HIV and getting liver transplants and antivirals, because they can get clean needles easily?

If aspirin had been invented when the FDA was the way it is today, it would have been a prescription drug. It certainly kills enough people. Acetaminophen kills a lot of people through suicide and subsequent liver failure. Diphenydramine gives some people hallucinations. But the FDA lets them through.

People are using solvent-grade DMSO for joint pain already, and even if I think there's insufficient evidence it works, some patients find it does... people are already getting high off spray varnish and morning-glory seeds and gasoline and nutmeg they buy down the street... people are using canned air from computer stores to freeze off their warts themselves instead of going to a doctor for some liquid nitrogen...

Where is the bright line YOU see?

 

[richard1984]

the war on drugs CREATES criminals and drug addicts

I just want to throw in that I don't think that there would be such a drug problem in America if there were less laws. The war on drugs has not only caused paranoia in common, good folk, but it has empowered real criminals (just like our presence in Iraq has resulted in a large surge in "terrorists"), by not only giving them a breeding/training ground but by also causing drug prices to skyrocket (due to the increased risk and the necessity to stay hidden).
So basically the war on drugs has caused blowback--it has actually provided criminals the means to increase their profits, increase their businesses, increase their influence, increase their enlistments, and increase their weapons.
(I'm not saying there wouldn't be criminals and there wouldn't be drug addicts without the war on drugs--but there sure-as-hell wouldn't be so damn many!)

Why in the world would anyone condone something that supports criminals?!
The war on drugs makes being a criminal a very lucrative business. The whole drug business is shady (even the simple, good-ol'-boy cannabis dealers) because of our moronic government and their attempts at "protecting" us.
It turns good, peaceful, intelligent, freedom-loving Americans into federal criminals--for no reason!!!

Look at the "war on drugs" like the "war on 'terror'"--it's all war, all the time! with the neocon war-mongers.

Now who are the terrorists again...?

 

[pcosmar]

Things like meth and crack

Ya all seem fixated on these, and granted they are nasty. They are also products directly related to the prohibition and war on drugs. They were created BY the war on drugs. Quality substances have been made prohibitively expensive or unavailable. The black market stepped in with these.
Opiates,cocaine, and sativa products were at one time legal and available. There was no drug or crime problem because of them. The problem was created by the prohibition.

 

[Mastiff]

Where is the bright line YOU see?

I don't see a bright line, I just know that flat out deregulation is on one side of it. We're currently on the other.

 

[Corydoras]

Things are getting slightly better. The FDA is making more and more drugs OTC, like Claritin and Aleve. (And Plan B, the morning-after pill, for better or worse.) And you can get your flu shot at a pharmacy, at least where I live. But there's a long, long way to go for freedom.

And in the meantime, herbals and botanicals are being inadequately studied. Most of the studies are being done in Germany, where they are taken seriously. But physicians are pointing out that many of these herbals can have effects as potent as prescriptions or poisons, and trying to restrict them as they succeeded with ephedra, an indigenous American herb that used to be called Mormon tea. People like Ron Paul and Orrin Hatch are desperately trying to protect our freedom to take them, despite the FDA trying to regulate them... but in a freer America, there would actually be enough money to discover the active substances in them so they could be bottled and sold.

The way things are going now, scientists are going into the rain forests and savannahs to discover botanicals from indigenous tribes so that they can patent them... relatively speaking compared to the cost of research, there's little money to be found in botanicals that anybody can grow in temperate climates, UNLESS it was more profitable to find the active ingredients, which the free market would make it.

 

[nexalacer]

They are not only offering choices, they are encouraging people to do something that is almost without exception damaging. The free market ceases to be efficient when people can profit by doing thing that are, on balance, harmful.

If they used Spider-man in TV ads, encouraging children to start using meth, would you not find that the slightest bit morally problematic?

And seriously, what's the end game for you guys? In your ideal world, is there a corner store selling crack, meth, prescription pain killers, ADD meds, anti-depressants, anti-biotics and everything else to all comers, regardless of age? Somehow I don't find this essential to a free society.

To your specific bridge example, yes, if your friends encourage you to jump off a bridge, they are to some extent responsible. You bear the bulk of the responsibility, but they aren't without some blame.

How are currently prohibited drugs more damaging than alcohol and tobacco? Tobacco averages approx. 450,000 deaths per year. Alcohol averages approx 85,000 deaths per year. Marijuana has 0 recorded deaths in history, while other illicit drugs average approx 17,000 deaths per year. Which leads to a more inefficient economy, 17,000 lost workers or 535,000?

What's the difference between offering choices and encouraging harmful behavior? How do you differentiate?

Of course using Spider-man to advertise meth would be morally problematic, but do you think parental groups and consumer advocacy groups would not have a field day destroying a company that used Spider-man to advertise meth?

The end game would be a corner store selling everything, however, it doesn't have to mean it's selling to everyone, regardless of age. I mean, at the moment, we have laws limiting the sales of harmful substances to minors, but even if they did not exist, do you expect a community would patronize a store that knowingly sold CRACK to children?

In the bridge example, how are friends to blame for suggesting something foolish, if you are the one who decides to do such a thing? Do you believe humans have free will? If not, why?

 

[USPatriot36]

Heath Insurance Premiums would be a lot lower and more affordable if you get get drugs without a prescription. If I look up in a medical book that I need ointment X to treat a skin disorder and there are no serious side effects, why can't i go buy it and give it a shot without a $100 doctor visit?

 

[Ron Paul Fan]

I'm pretty sure the states would regulate some drugs. I think they should get rid of all drug laws. People should be allowed to do what they want with their bodies and in their own homes. Mastiff, just the other day, they walked into somebody's house. They suspected he was a drug dealer! He was using his automatic selector and the police marched in and they said, "It looked like a gun" after they killed the man! In America! Why? Tell me! Why?

 

[hard@work]

People using drugs or in jail for drugs are our family members. They're our brothers, sisters, fathers, mothers, aunts, uncles, and cousins. If a family member is sick they should be treated. Rehabilitation does not include forcing someone to ruin their life, their career, and their soul by throwing them into a prison cell with a murderer or a rapist.

 

[Mastiff]

I'm starting to get frustrated and need to leave the conversation. Nobody is actually responding to my arguments.

I find it a little disconcerting the attitude you folks have because I'm a very libertarian person outside of anarchist internet forums. I hope all Paul supporters aren't this way or we have no hope of getting normal people to feel at home with us.

 

[nexalacer]

I'm starting to get frustrated and need to leave the conversation. Nobody is actually responding to my arguments.

I find it a little disconcerting the attitude you folks have because I'm a very libertarian person outside of anarchist internet forums. I hope all Paul supporters aren't this way or we have no hope of getting normal people to feel at home with us.

I'm sorry, I was attempting to respond, but I can't respond without a basic understanding of where you're coming from, hence the questions I asked.

Edit: If you are willing to answer the questions I asked, I'm willing to continue the conversation reasonably.

 

[pcosmar]

I have yet to see a rational argument for continuing a failed and destructive policy.

 

[richard1984]

And seriously, what's the end game for you guys? In your ideal world, is there a corner store selling crack, meth, prescription pain killers, ADD meds, anti-depressants, anti-biotics and everything else to all comers, regardless of age?

I can't really think of any medicinal uses for crack or meth. I think that those are extreme examples, and no one here is suggesting that they be sold at the corner store (that would be retarded).

For me, an ideal world would be one in which I could have my own personal (medicinal) cannabis garden. I see nothing wrong with this whatsoever. I wouldn't have to depend on or involve anyone else--it would be a personal harvest.
I hate the usual ADHD medications (speed--amphetimines). They're all right in moderation, but taking it every day really sucks. Cannabis is a vastly preferable medication--it doesn't have nearly the amount of negative side-effects, and it really does help.

I have to go for now, but I, too, would be very interested in continuing this conversation.
What do you think about my previous post in this thread?

 

[kylejack]

I'm starting to get frustrated and need to leave the conversation. Nobody is actually responding to my arguments.

I find it a little disconcerting the attitude you folks have because I'm a very libertarian person outside of anarchist internet forums. I hope all Paul supporters aren't this way or we have no hope of getting normal people to feel at home with us.

Your question doesn't really go anywhere. What Ron Paul thinks states should do is kind of irrelevant because its UP to the states to do it. It is their decision. Each state can handle the issue however its best handled for THEIR citizens. The beauty of it is that Ron Paul has no say in what those states do. Each state can manage it how they wish.

So you know....who cares what RP thinks the states should do?

 

[Marceline88]

Ron Paul has introduced a bill to allow Hemp to be cultivated for industrial use again. But then that's not part of the War on Drugs as much as it part of the War on a Very Useful Agricultural/Industrial Material That The Big Corporations Don't Want As Competition.

On a Federal level I want the govt. to get out the way and stop prohibiting and prosecuting natural pharmaceutically beneficial substances. On a State level, I don't ever want to see MO allow the production and distribution of crack or crank, and I will fight against such measures within my state should they ever be so ignorant as to allow that. That's our job as good citizens.

 

[shadowhooch]

I'm jumping in here because I've had many of the same thoughts Mastiff has. I too am unsure and skeptical of "End the War on Drugs" policy.

Okay, so many of you have said that it will now be the States function.

Scenario 1:
I don't see many States legalizing cocaine and meth. So how will this change who is criminalized? And how will it change the blackmarket dealers? There wouldn't be much change would there?

Scenario 2:
Let's say that the States do legalize all drug use and leave it up to individuals. What will that society be like? Hard and harmful drugs will still be in demand. Who will supply them? Will it be like cigarrettes in that you have to be over 18 to purchase cocaine at Walgreens?
Do you think drug abuse and deaths would go up or down?
What do you think will be the impact on overall use and consequences?

I DO think that the "illegality" of drug use is a deterrent for some, not all, but some. If it was now "legal", would more kids be in danger?

Forgive Mastiff and I here. We are so far from a pure "free" society, that it is a hard concept to put your head around. Please paint a complete picture for us.

 

[richard1984]

I'm jumping in here because I've had many of the same thoughts Mastiff has. I too am unsure and skeptical of "End the War on Drugs" policy.

Okay, so many of you have said that it will now be the States function.

Scenario 1:
I don't see many States legalizing cocaine and meth. So how will this change who is criminalized? And how will it change the blackmarket dealers? There wouldn't be much change would there?

Scenario 2:
Let's say that the States do legalize all drug use and leave it up to individuals. What will that society be like? Hard and harmful drugs will still be in demand. Who will supply them? Will it be like cigarrettes in that you have to be over 18 to purchase cocaine at Walgreens?
Do you think drug abuse and deaths would go up or down?
What do you think will be the impact on overall use and consequences?

I DO think that the "illegality" of drug use is a deterrent for some, not all, but some. If it was now "legal", would more kids be in danger?

Forgive Mastiff and I here. We are so far from a pure "free" society, that it is a hard concept to put your head around. Please paint a complete picture for us.

(I’m going to try to keep this short, but I probably won’t succeed--hopefully I’ll at least be kinda clear...I have to type fast because I have to go to class soon.)
I really think that hard drugs would be less of a problem if it weren’t for the federal war on drugs.
The government's anti-drug propaganda has tried to convince us that marijuana is a "gate-way" drug. That people who smoke weed will soon want "something stronger," so they move to shrooms or acid, then to coke and pills, then they start injecting coke and heroin. --That's the evolution of the drug user.

But that's completely misleading.

I know from experience that the "gateway drug" myth is false (if anything, it's a self-fulfilling prophesy). The reason people "want to try something stronger" is because they're often exposed to hard drugs as a direct result of the drug war.
The problem is that we have to get cannabis from "drug dealers." Usually dealers just start out selling weed, too, but larger profits are big temptations, and once you've started doing one illegal thing, it's easier to do more of the same. So the incentive is high for drug dealers to sell multiple drugs (marijuana, then some pills, then they get a hook-up for Lucy or mushrooms, then better pills, then maybe a little coke here-and-there, then a little more, etc. etc.). Often the dealers themselves start struggling with addictions, and end up dealing just to keep up their habits.
It's a horrible, tragic scenario, and it happens far too often (especially in "cool," "tough guy," college kids who get a little too carried away).
So what often ends up happening is that the dealer has access to really good, reasonably priced weed, and he has and attracts a lot of customers who are only interested in that. But more and more people start hanging out with the main dealer because he's "fun" and likes to "party and have a good time" (so basically, the dealer no longer has any, or at least many, real friends, because everyone just basically uses him).
So when he sells weed to the nice, friendly, "cool" cannabis smokers, he tries to get them to "hang out and have a good time--just relax."
And if the guys who just want to buy weed and get out decide to be polite and hang-out for a little while, they usually end up being exposed to things they wouldn't necessarily want to be around. But the dealer seems nice enough...etc....
Of course, people are different. Some just want to smoke a little weed and that's it. Some just wanna "get fucked up."
It's the latter type of person who gets into trouble, because they feel like they've walked into a buffet of different ways to "get fucked up." (It's a really horrible mentality, in my opinion--and it's often just a form of rebellion.)

So to sum-up what I'm trying to say: Hard drugs are a problem because all drugs are illegal, so you have to get everything from drug dealers.

If plants were at least legal, I really do not believe there would be such a drug problem (which has evolved into include horrible, evil drugs like meth).

Not to mention the fact that most drug dealers make the vast majority of their money from selling cannabis. If it were legalized there would be far fewer dealers, and far more honest, law-abiding citizens who no longer feel as if they have to live in the shadows because they smoke cannabis.

Most of the violence surrounding drugs is the direct result of illegality and paranoia. The level of paranoia associated with drug use is a direct effect of the war on drugs. People are fearful and sometimes do really stupid things because of it.

There are always going to be addicts. We've proven that we can't get rid of it (without resorting to extreme measures), so why continue to fight them? Don't you think that the real drug-related problems (like violence) would be nearly reversed if their addictions didn't make them criminals?

It seems to me that much of the social problems surrounding drugs and drug abuse is the direct result of something like what Sartre refers to as "bad faith" ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bad_faith_(existentialism) ). Drug users are "criminals" under our current system, and I do believe that when most people are labeled as such, they will act as such (again, a sort of self-fulfilling prophecy).

We have to better understand psychology (especially social psychology and the like) to really understand why people act the way they do, and why the "war on drugs" is really a "war on the people."
When we look at the reality of our American society, it's no wonder we're so damn angry and discontent--the government is making our lives suck.

They need to just get the hell out of our lives. When they can't even manage their own lives, how in the hell are they supposed to effective manage ours?

We're ruining everything because we keep letting the government get in our way. If widespread government intervention/meddling makes people feel safer and more secure, then they deserve the hell they are inviting upon themselves.
Most all of the major problems we have are the direct result of centralized government.
If the American people don't really start waking up soon en masse, then I’m just going to assume that they haven’t "evolved" ones--they people who are still the same as the people a thousand years ago.
If they don't see Freedom in their future, then they have no future.
The Freedom Movement is the future.
We have to stop telling everyone else what to do and how to live, and we need to start focusing on ourselves. Lord knows out-of-control government sure has made it difficult for the New Generation to realize their full potential.
It assures me to know that we are the creators, and they are the destroyers.
They're cancer. They'll destroy themselves.

(I hope what I said is clear enough--I have a feeling I made something simple too complicated/convoluted. I don't want to sound too far out there or anything. I'm just trying to get my perspective across, and unfortunately I don't have time to edit right now.)

 

[nexalacer]

richard1984, great analysis on how prohibition leads to more drug use. That is right on, and of course, it was the same thing that led to an increase in alcohol use during the 30s.

Quite simply, prohibition is a bad idea. It never solves the problems it intends to and it just leads to the creation of a new criminal class, which increases the anti-freedom power of the state.