RP Will Legalize Drugs?

[Marc Scott Emery]

On Prohibitions

If he allows states to prosecute the issue I have no problem. But if his position is the legality of drugs I have severe problems with that. I was to work with people on drugs, some became friends and some are now dead at young ages.

The problem with the "war of drugs" is that the leaders of the country allow drug pushers to go free even though they know they are guilty and know where the drugs are. Watching the head of the CIA admit this changed my view that the problem wasn't the "war" but how the war is being fought, namely, with their eyes shut.

Mike,

Freedom is that kind of risk. Some people may tragically misuse drugs to their own and perhaps the detriment of others.

But prohibition is worse, much worse. I believe all prohibitions create the reverse of the stated intention of prohibition. Corrupt officials, social disorder, huge prison populations, selective prosecution of the vulnerable classes, massive financial cost to the taxpayer, an always expanding police state, tremendous erosion of the Constitution, particularly the first nine, including the second, and millions of broken families as incarceration levels inevitably skyrocket under drug prohibitions.

Prohibitions of every kind create larger government, more intrusive government, responsibility and authority are wrested from parents and adult citizens and then become vested in the political establishment and government. Gun prohibition, drug prohibition, alcohol prohibition, abortion prohibition, technology prohibition, stem-cell prohibition, gold currency prohibition, gambling prohibitions, etc. all result in increasing power of the government and fewer Constitutional and privacy rights for Americans. And all prohibitions are destabilizing.

It was Ayn Rand who said " civilization is the progress toward individual privacy, free from the dictates and admonitions of the tribe, the collective. " Indeed, every form of prohibition is an invasion of fundamental privacy. The Founding Fathers would have been opposed to drug or plant prohibitions as they were to gun prohibitions and commerce prohibitions. Indeed, President Washington is the largest cultivator of cannabis in the history of the United States even to this present day. In 1789, George Washington was the largest single landholder in the entire United States and since 1760 had cultivated thousands of acres of cannabis annually, and Mr. Washington made copious diary notes about his many varieties of cannabis including his prized 'INDIA' cannabis. Jefferson, Madison Washington were professed admirers of cannabis.

Criminality thrives in the dark of prohibition. Men of reason prosper in the light.

 

[G-khan]

If he allows states to prosecute the issue I have no problem. But if his position is the legality of drugs I have severe problems with that. I was to work with people on drugs, some became friends and some are now dead at young ages.

The problem with the "war of drugs" is that the leaders of the country allow drug pushers to go free even though they know they are guilty and know where the drugs are. Watching the head of the CIA admit this changed my view that the problem wasn't the "war" but how the war is being fought, namely, with their eyes shut.

Well before the 1914 Harrison act was passed you could buy all the drugs you wanted... 1913 they got the Federal Reserve and Income Tax started.. I can tell you this from my studies and from doing drug counseling in our prison system. The worst drug I have found IMO is alcohol they made it illegal with prohibition for a while and that is what gave rise to Al Capone and all the killings in Chicago. Right now the gangs that are around the leaders drive big expensive cars and attract new members with the money that can be made. Drugs IMO are the glue that holds them together..

Think about this - it is illegal for me to come across certain plants (weed opium peyote etc.) that God put on this earth and eat them. It is wrong to do that and I don't need a daddy to tell me what I can do. Now if I eat one of those plants and do something to someone else that is another story. If I want to eat big macs smoke cigarettes or drink poison I consider that my business and my life.

Liberty means I can do what I like as long as I do not infringe on your Liberties..

I don't smoke or drink or use drugs but I think it is my right to do so if that is what I choose.

There are other things that can be done to discourage the use of drugs without locking them up in prison and making us all pay for it. I believe it does not save lives because it causes gangsters to carry guns and protect their supply and territory. There is big time blowback from making drugs illegal and like Iraq is causing death..

Just look back before 1914 when they were legal - you could buy heroin at the local drug store. They did not carry guns around in 1914 - why do they now?

If drugs were legal we would empty out most of the prisons and could use that money for treatment.

Sounds like you want to throw away the key on the so called drug leaders and have us all pay for it. I would rather they be treated like alcoholics.

Thats My 2 cents worth...........

 

[Electric Church]

If all drugs were legalized it would not result in the increase of drug users but it would place the distribution of addictive drugs in the hands of medical professionals, instead of gang related drug dealers, who would deal with addicts on a one on one safe and professional basis, providing them with the ability to be weaned off of their addiction. Legalizing all drugs forces us to deal with addiction and fight a war on addiction and not a war on drugs.

When we legalize drugs we will immediately wipe out 98% of all prostitution.. 98% of all gang activity, 98 percent of crime because most crime is related to drug trafficking or drug addicts trying to get money for their next fix.

Also by wiping out all this crime we will immediately reduce the amount of expenditure for law enforcement, which is failing miserably on the current war on drugs and costing billions.

Go Ron go…….

 

[Spatch67]

then take a hike...join another forum....bye

Not cool Electric Church! First of all, Mike started this post because he needed to understand fully what Ron Paul means when he says "legalize drugs". Like it or not, this is going to be the elephant in the corner of the room of Ron Pauls campaign and we need to learn to convey and communicate this message to everyone, and Mikelovesgod is currently asking all the questions that we as Ron Paul supporters better get good at answering, and we better get good at answering them fast.

Our society is pounded by Bernaysian tactics by the government. We have been led to believe that drugs are pure evil, and without the government protecting us from them, we are hopeless and doomed to anarchy.

Typical Americans have had the War on Drugs hammered into thier head all of their lives. There is simply no alternative and to mention or suggest otherwise is insane. It also is political suicide unless you can make your talking points really fast and really effective.

What people don't stop and think about is, if we don't have a war on drugs, some people do drugs.

But since we have a war on drugs: People do drugs, criminals get rich, prisons overcrowd because they are filled with young kids who were toting a dime bag, corrupt politicians get rich, corrupt law enforcement officials get rich, gangs start, and many other things. Most importantly however is that kids die in the streets from stray bullets.

More people die PERIOD! because of the drug war. Way more! I know you know this as do most people on this board, but Ma and Pa America living in suburbia don't see or realize what is happening internally to our cities. We have to learn to communicate this to others.

Now I'm not an administrator or anything and I don't speak for everyone, but if I can state my opinion: As for dismissing people from this board, you should rethink your attitude on that. Mike is asking intelligent questions and not being belligerent. We should welcome all people who are "wavering" and have questions and concerns. We need supporters, but we are going to reach a mass where it is going to be a small group of people who understand these issues. At some point we are going to have to start educating and convincing if Ron Paul is going to win anything.

 

[Electric Church]

Not cool Electric Church! you should rethink your attitude on that. Mike is asking intelligent questions and not being belligerent. We should welcome all people who are "wavering" and have questions and concerns.

I agree...just a passionate response...my apology....note my latest reply....i give more details

 

[Marc Scott Emery]

That may not be too far off. Remember that morphine and other opiates were in most of the patent medicines. It wasn't something that needed a prescription and was handed out to children as well as adults.

'40-50%' addiction in the legal period? That assertion is grossly incorrect. By 1905, there were an estimated 500,000 Americans using heroin and opiates in alcohols, pills, powders. The cost was about 10 - 30 cents a day and it was mostly women. Women liked opiates because million of women were beaten by drunken men, life was hard, medical care scarce, drugs cheap and legal so women dealt with pain uncomplainingly by taking these opiate drugs available everywhere. Women were quiet on opiates so no one much minded as that is how a lady was supposed to behave. But once opiates got banned (state prohibition laws began to appear in 1907 and became federalized in 1914) and most white women didn't fancy themselves as opium-den types in the prohibition period, they got their revenge and banned alcohol within 6 months of getting the vote in 1919. Alcohol was sought to be banned because of the extensive carnage alcohol wreaked on women. Opiate addiction however had few social repercusions regarding crime, violence, domestic household disorder. Ordinary middle class women are often seeking drugs for depression or stress, every generation of women has different drugs (Mother's Little Helpers) , in 1885 - 1910, opiates, 1950's - tranquilizers, Valium, SSRI's in the 90's and new millenium. There were no women prostituting themselves for cheap opiates, no home invasions, no street crime, no gun crime, no criminal gangs peddling drugs, children had no fascination with drugs, during the period when drugs were legal. Prohibitions of drugs and alcohol fuelled the Jewish mafia, the Italian mafia, the black inner city gangs, and we still bear that prohibitionist legacy today, except now we have mafias of every ethnic group because the money is too fantastic for anyone to ignore.

 

[Michael Varin]

Freedom implies morality. We are not free to murder, we are not free to defamation, etc.. We are not free to allow the traffic of illegal substances that can easily destroy life and the ignorant and innocent must be protected. This is institionalized license and to pretend that it will kill the Afghan trade of opium, or stop the bad guys in alleys from the perpetuation of a black market is myopic and sophomoric logic.

Do you know much about the prohibition era? Do you believe alcohol should be made illegal again?

http://mises.org/multimedia/block/block-ourstory-02-28-2007.wmv

Don’t forget that drugs (marijuana, opium, cocaine) were totally legal and un-regulated in this country until some very shady legislation in 1914.

You should step back and take an objective look at this issue. Regardless of what conclusion you come to, you’ll be better off for exploring all sides of it.

Michael

 

[Marc Scott Emery]

Its important to remember

that you can't let one of two of Dr. Paul's positions negate the hundreds of positions you do like of Dr. Paul's!

Its possible all of Dr. Paul's supporters might have one or two or even more positions that don't match Ron Paul. Maybe on abortion, maybe drugs, maybe the Federal Reserve, but Congressman Paul has written over 500 articles! Is it possible any one of us can find identical agreement in all 500 essays! Probably not. Though I'll say this. In this campaign alone, I have learned alot from Dr. Paul and HE HAS CHANGED MY MIND ON ISSUES because he is consistent. Consistency in him made me look at inconsistencies in me. Ron Paul is the most prolific writer on political issues of any Congressman. He is candid and truthful and intellectually honest. Ron Paul is not out to trick me or you, or use emotional rhetoric to obscure his true agenda. He has nothing to gain. I trust him like I trust almost no other human being.

His integrity is his life. Champion of The Constitution. I was so proud of him when he said that at the outset of NH Debate. What's not to like!?

 

[ShaneC]

After reading and browsing all the pages in this thread, I feel I should ask this:

How likely is this to become a real issue? Honestly?

Dr. Paul could request to cut the funding of the "War on Drugs", and even provided that the budget cut went through, whats the likelihood of this topic actually getting onto the floor and being voted on to the degree of completely removing Federal Oversight regarding "drugs"?

 

[AgentSmith]

During alcohol prohibition the US Government released a report that concluded that all prohibition really did was to corrupt law enforcement.

 

[ChooseLiberty]

If you're into morality (or not) is it "moral" to have one of the biggest wealth transfers the world has ever seen from US citizens to the drug cartels to the point where they rival major corporations and small governments in income? Add in wealth transfer to drug gangs and the drug law enforcement itself. It's a huge narco-industrial complex based on funneling money to both sides with no end in sight and nothing useful produced. What if the DEA money were funneled into scientific research. What amazing things could happen.

I think one of the biggest arguments (amoral) is economics. Decriminalize and regulate. Drug prices reach a lower free market clearing price are taxed and administered under controlled circumstances - something similar to the Dutch. Talk about a peace dividend.

 

[Sakimoto]

If he allows states to prosecute the issue I have no problem. But if his position is the legality of drugs I have severe problems with that. I was to work with people on drugs, some became friends and some are now dead at young ages.

The problem with the "war of drugs" is that the leaders of the country allow drug pushers to go free even though they know they are guilty and know where the drugs are. Watching the head of the CIA admit this changed my view that the problem wasn't the "war" but how the war is being fought, namely, with their eyes shut.

No, the problem with the "war on drugs" is that it is completely futile, severely erodes civil liberties, empowers and already powerful government, and ruins the lives of friends and family. Hey, lets have a "war on crime" too. Maybe a "war on trans fat"? Let's have a war on anything and everthing the government says is bad so we can be slaves. Anytime the government starts a "war" on something, you can guarantee it won't be good for freedom.

 

[angelatc]

Well, I think that the original poster has a valid point about the social stigma being a deterrent. I do not think that the stigma would vanish if drugs were decriminalized. I'm not sure how old you are, but when I was a kid in the '60's litter was a big problem. Driving down the highway, it was commonplace to see people throwing garbage out of their cars.

Two things happened: The States passed laws prohibiting it, but more importantly the "Crying Indian" commercial hit the airwaves. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q_gokTG46oQ for you youngsters.

Statisticians might review that period in time and argue that increasing the fines associated with littering decreases littering, but those of us that were there know that the truth is the damned Indian called us on being slobs.

I don't know anybody who got a ticket for littering.

 

[Sakimoto]

I don't believe the government should be allowed to kill it's citizens, either.

Yeah, I'm pretty sure anyone who believes this doesn't believe in freedom.

 

[angelatc]

After reading and browsing all the pages in this thread, I feel I should ask this:

How likely is this to become a real issue? Honestly?

?

IMHO, it's very likely to become a real issue. His opponents won't hesitate to decry it as insanity, and paint him as some sort of a dangerous wildcard that would have drug addicts dying on the streets.

 

[JoshLowry]

Thanks for keeping things civil. Lots of good points made.

It is tough like Mark said to agree with every issue that comes along. However he is the farthest thing from a "lesser evil" that I've seen in a long time.

The man who agrees with me 80% of the time is not my enemy, he is my friend.

 

[mesler]

btw, WELCOME to the forums, Mikelovesgod.

 

[lucky]

Howdy

Drugs can be bad for sure. Even legal drugs can be bad for sure.

The main gist of everything that we have to look at is if the Government owns the citizens body. If the Gov. does own the citizens body then it can say and make laws that govern what can or can not be ingested in that body.

Also if the Gov. owns that body then it stands to reason that he can intrude in our personal privacy and make sure that the Governed body is not doing anything that it does not want it to.

If the Gov. can intrude into our personal lives then it can eavedrop on conversations and peek in whereever and whenever it feels like it.

If we don't like something so bad that we do not want others to do those things and then demand the Gov. enforces bans on those things because we feel it is harmful or morally wrong then be prepared to accept the consequences. There are not too many gray areas here.

As for me what I choose to do in the privacy of my home to myself should be no ones elses business but my own.

Also lets figure that Ron Paul is elected. He is not gonna be making drugs legal. He is a Constitutionalist. He will stop funding the drug war with all the attendant abuses. It will be up the the states to do as they think is right and not talked down to by a Big Brother.

If California and the other states want medical marijuana then let them have it. The Feds have no right to tell the states that even if you believe that a drug is beneficial to many for many different illnesses, we think it is wrong and morally corrupt and we are the Feds and say NO.

The Feds do not own the states or people.

 

[Sakimoto]

Also lets figure that Ron Paul is elected. He is not gonna be making drugs legal. He is a Constitutionalist. He will stop funding the drug war with all the attendant abuses. It will be up the the states to do as they think is right and not talked down to by a Big Brother.

If California and the other states want medical marijuana then let them have it. The Feds have no right to tell the states that even if you believe that a drug is beneficial to many for many different illnesses, we think it is wrong and morally corrupt and we are the Feds and say NO.

The Feds do not own the states or people.

This is an excellent point. To those who are wavering on supporting Paul over the drug issue, it is important to remember why we like Ron Paul. One of the reasons I respect him is because he respects the CONSTITUTION and opposes centralization of government (as did the founders). Let it be a State issue and reduce the federal government behemoth to the powers enumerated in the constitution. I think most people can respect that.

 

[theblatanttruth]

As said before, the War on Drugs is ONLY A WAR ON MARIJUANA.

Look at the facts, every other drug (hard or not) such as coke, crack, opiates, nerve pills, pain pills, etc etc etc are all out of your system within a few days.

Marijuana stays for 1-2 months depending on usage amount.

Employers use an unconstitutional PRE-SCREEN for drugs, which first off assumes guilt before any evidence (circumstantial OR physical) which is basically only 'weed'ing out MJ smokers because all any one else has to do is quit hooting coke for 3 days and they've got a job.

It's a sickeningly ineffective stance to take because you're weeding out the users who's drug is the LEAST debilitating. Hell, I've seen some pretty motivated pot smokers in my time.

The fact is you'll never be able to control what one does to themselves in a free society, when you do you create a vacuum for illegal and violent activity mating supply with demand which just causes violent crime.