RP Will Legalize Drugs?

[jimmyjamsslo]

war on terror bad as the war on drugs

here's the doctor's viewpoint on the ill-begotten war on drugs:



The War on Terror? It's As Bad As the War on Drugs

hope that helps, jimmy

 

[angelatc]

Want no drug problem? Follow Madagascar's policy: found dealing drugs you die.

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

 

[ThePieSwindler]

Drugs don't kill people? Go snort some coke some night and tell me it can't happen. Crack addicts go to incredible lengths to get money to get more. Heroin kills so many people on just one night, so does speed balls.

Do you want to see the rise of innocent deaths? Legalize drugs, allow Walmart to sell it, and let's see what happens. Many, many, many people won't do them simply because of the fear of getting arrested and it stops their curiosity. Watch how many people die in proportion to what we have now.

Anything which can effectively kill you on one night by an accident should be illegal. You can't OD on weed, and ODing on alcohol is incredibly difficult and very rarely causes death, but it certainly can happen with crack, coke and heroin. One night and you are dead. I don't want that situation to be a reality.

Want no drug problem? Follow Madagascar's policy: found dealing drugs you die. The real problem is the justice system allowing this while the ACLU destroying justice by playing the system, and the gov't not arresting people and shipments they know exist. My freaking brother was a dealer, the cops knew it, and never did a thing until he almost died. I used to work with drug addicts so I know how the system works and how the juridical system is handcuffed to the new insanity of false civil liberties that are perpetrated by ingenious lawyers who defend the guilty looking for loopholes while be funded by drug dollars.

That's the problem, not this pseudo war we are facing.

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.

Ok, but Paul isnt saying that drugs should be LEGALIZED and sold commerically, just that the war on drugs should be halted. You're almost SUPPORTING his position by talking about the corruption related to drugs. Stopping the drug war is very different from legalizing drugs and allowing them to be sold commercially, and does not equate to full legalization of "hard" drugs. What paul is essentially saying is that the drug war is not working, it needs to be halted, and people need to take responsibilities for their actions. It is not the job of the federal government to regulate a war on drugs. That duty can be relegated to the states, and would probably be much, much more effective.

Note; by drugs i mean hard drugs. Marijuana should just be straight up legalized, as it is far less dangerous than alcohol.

 

[mika813]

Moral Superior

Mike,
What God do you “love” that gives you moral judgment over others?

 

[specsaregood]

From a purely Fiscal point of view..

//

 

[Tin_Foil_Hat]

Anything which can effectively kill you on one night by an accident should be illegal.

Wow.

I guess we'll have to outlaw the majority of household products.

 

[mdh]

Drugs don't kill people? Go snort some coke some night and tell me it can't happen.

OK. Go run your car into a tree at 60 miles per hour. Just because you can do that, and likely kill yourself, doesn't mean the government should outlaw cars.

Want no drug problem? Follow Madagascar's policy: found dealing drugs you die.

Shall we also follow the policies of other African nations? Perhaps stoning to death adulterous women? Seriously now...

 

[Phil M]

Just for the record, since the Netherlands legalized marijuana smoking pot has dramatically decreased.

 

[mdh]

Wow.

I guess we'll have to outlaw the majority of household products.

I've been told that antifreeze tastes sweet, and is appealing to children. Always comes with a child-proof cap, too. Guess we need to outlaw it now, though, since it is known to be deadly.

 

[quickmike]

Legalizing drugs is really a non issue at this point. Think about it, when government is corrupt from the top on down, legalizing drugs is the last of our worries. Lets concentrate on the IRS, the FED, and nation building.......then we can worry about smaller issues like legalizing drugs. Besides, you need support from congress and senate for something like that, and at this point I dont think its in the cards. More important things to focus on.

Just my opinion,

Mike Q

 

[LibertyBelle]

Agree on legalizing marijuana. Alcohol is legal and people get into cars drunk all of the time. Prohibition didn't work for alcohol.

I guess you could say prohibition wouldn't work for harder drugs, too. Don't know what the best answer here is, except stop the federal 'war on drugs' and let the states handle it.

There are corrupt politicians, bureaucrats, and cops that are involved with drugs entering and being sold in this country. What do you do about that? Hard to have a war on drugs when the people that are supposed to be fighting it are involved with the problem itself. Corruption is ugly.

 

[mikelovesgod]

1st I never said making laws stop people, but it definitely slows things down. Take a 13 year old, never tried drugs, told drugs kill, but there is a curiosity there. He will more than likely never do hard drugs that kill just because they are illegal. Is this true 100% of the time? Never said, that it certainly slows down the progression of drug use.

2nd The argument that people are going to do it anyway does not negate the principle. People shouldn't get divorced for the good of the children yet they do it anyways. People shouldn't murder others, and police should just follow the law. Ok, bad things happen. But where in any book of true ethical principles does not negate the principle? Arguments of abuse don't negate principles of ethics.

3rd If drugs are legalized what do you think about your son or daughter at a young age found comatose or dead? It happens now, but the frequency is going to strike a lot closer to home than you imagine.

4th the Constitution said all men are will have "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness". When any substance that takes away life, destroys your liberty and compromises your will to choose become options than you destroy this fundamental understanding of liberty and how it is protected. Drugs enslave people and the public has the right to be defended. I'm big time small gov't, but you will be opening Pandora's Box to the amount of rehab centers, loss of performance in the work-force, and medical bills associated with drugs.

5th The "War on Drugs" is not a war being a waged. I've watched 2 CIA officials, one was the head of the CIA (who stepped down precisely because of this insanity) admit he knew what was being shipped when it was coming. The war of drugs is nothing more than a pretense for a police state.
Here's a good video, but I've seen so much more:
http://youtube.com/watch?v=0z6nY3ySWrk

So it's not the fight, it's the lack of fight to make a police state. It still does not negate the necessity to stop anarchy or the lack of order.

6th Dr. Paul's article about the war on doctors is ok within it's sphere of pain prescriptions, but we are talking about the war on innocent that will be wiped out.

7th Police who break the law does not negate the principles of ethics.

Sorry, but I don't buy it. I'll still stick with RP, but this is wrong, just wrong. Laws should not be repealed because of gov't corruption. Truth isn't error because the person or organization who holds it doesn't live up to it.

 

[n664dc]

Legalizing drugs is really a non issue at this point. Think about it, when government is corrupt from the top on down, legalizing drugs is the last of our worries. Lets concentrate on the IRS, the FED, and nation building.......then we can worry about smaller issues like legalizing drugs. Besides, you need support from congress and senate for something like that, and at this point I dont think its in the cards. More important things to focus on.

Just my opinion,

Mike Q

Hear! Hear!

2nd The argument that people are going to do it anyway does not negate the principle. People shouldn't get divorced for the good of the children yet they do it anyways. People shouldn't murder others, and police should just follow the law. Ok, bad things happen. But where in any book of true ethical principles does not negate the principle? Arguments of abuse don't negate principles of ethics.

The job of the Prez is to enforce the laws... if one can't enforce the laws, or enforcing the laws isn't effective, what good is it to have it soley due to principle?

 

[cujothekitten]

Drugs don't kill people? Go snort some coke some night and tell me it can't happen. Crack addicts go to incredible lengths to get money to get more. Heroin kills so many people on just one night, so does speed balls.

Well I have. I've done cocaine, LSD, marijuana, smoked cigarettes and used to be addicted to speed. I understand it can kill but I think everyone’s point is that lots of things can kill... Including alcohol.

Do you want to see the rise of innocent deaths? Legalize drugs, allow Walmart to sell it, and let's see what happens. Many, many, many people won't do them simply because of the fear of getting arrested and it stops their curiosity. Watch how many people die in proportion to what we have now.

Wal-Mart does sell drugs now you just don't know about them. Robitussin, when taken in adequate amounts, is probably the most intense trip someone can have. Nitrous is also widely available. If you think your kids don't know about these drugs you're naive. If you think your kids can't get a hold of any drug (legal or otherwise) you're being naive.

I don't think anyone is saying cocaine should be sold on the shelves at Wal-Mart; they're talking about strict regulation that is only available to adults. It's safer to produce drugs that are clean then have them home made that contain rat poison.

Anything which can effectively kill you on one night by an accident should be illegal. You can't OD on weed, and ODing on alcohol is incredibly difficult and very rarely causes death, but it certainly can happen with crack, coke and heroin. One night and you are dead. I don't want that situation to be a reality.

With all due respect I think you're fairly ignorant of the amount of OD's that happen a year from one night of partying with beer.

Want no drug problem? Follow Madagascar's policy: found dealing drugs you die.

So you want to prevent death by overdose by killing people found with illegal drugs?! OMG, that's horrible! That is really an astonishing statement.

I used to work with drug addicts so I know how the system works and how the juridical system is handcuffed to the new insanity of false civil liberties that are perpetrated by ingenious lawyers who defend the guilty looking for loopholes while be funded by drug dollars.

What false civil liberties would those be?

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.

No, freedom is:
1. the state of being free or at liberty rather than in confinement or under physical restraint: He won his freedom after a retrial.
2. exemption from external control, interference, regulation, etc.
3. the power to determine action without restraint.
4. political or national independence.
5. personal liberty, as opposed to bondage or slavery: a slave who bought his freedom.
6. exemption from the presence of anything specified (usually fol. by from): freedom from fear.
7. the absence of or release from ties, obligations, etc.
8. ease or facility of movement or action: to enjoy the freedom of living in the country.
9. frankness of manner or speech.
10. general exemption or immunity: freedom from taxation.
11. the absence of ceremony or reserve.
12. a liberty taken.
13. a particular immunity or privilege enjoyed, as by a city or corporation: freedom to levy taxes.
14. civil liberty, as opposed to subjection to an arbitrary or despotic government.
15. the right to enjoy all the privileges or special rights of citizenship, membership, etc., in a community or the like.
16. the right to frequent, enjoy, or use at will: to have the freedom of a friend's library.
17. Philosophy. the power to exercise choice and make decisions without constraint from within or without; autonomy; self-determination. Compare necessity (def. 7).

We don't murder because we protect freedom... when you kill it takes away freedom to live
We don't steal because we protect freedom... when you steal it takes away freedom to own property

 

[X_805]

Agree on legalizing marijuana. Alcohol is legal and people get into cars drunk all of the time. Prohibition didn't work for alcohol.

At least prohibition was legal even if it didn't work. They actually amended the Constitution instead of going around it. If the people really want federal authority with drugs, pursue it with an amendment. I mean, the government probably tries to justify it with the commerce clause, but "among" does not mean "within".

 

[Hamburglar]

Here's an interesting video about the war on drugs from the stand point of a leading economist and great thinker of our time, someone who I know Dr. Paul has great respect for aswell: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Se_TJzB9-z0

 

[mdh]

1st I never said making laws stop people, but it definitely slows things down. Take a 13 year old, never tried drugs, told drugs kill, but there is a curiosity there. He will more than likely never do hard drugs that kill just because they are illegal. Is this true 100% of the time? Never said, that it certainly slows down the progression of drug use.

The assertion that laws slow things down is just bogus. Have you ever met a 13 year old? Have you ever been 13? Most kids do stuff just to rebel, without any real concern for what the action even is, just for the thrill of violating some arbitrary authority's rules!

2nd The argument that people are going to do it anyway does not negate the principle. People shouldn't get divorced for the good of the children yet they do it anyways. People shouldn't murder others, and police should just follow the law. Ok, bad things happen. But where in any book of true ethical principles does not negate the principle? Arguments of abuse don't negate principles of ethics.

What's the principle here, though? That people should never be allowed to do anything that might be dangerous? OK, criminalize automobiles and antifreeze and drain cleaner, then we can talk about cocaine, marijuana, etc.

3rd If drugs are legalized what do you think about your son or daughter at a young age found comatose or dead? It happens now, but the frequency is going to strike a lot closer to home than you imagine.

Same as I think about if they aren't decriminalized/legalized! I strongly disagree with the latter statement here, I believe that bringing drug use and experimentation into the open and out of the shadows will foster responsible use, rather than accidental abuses that lead to these sorts of situations including fatalities.

4th the Constitution said all men are will have "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness". When any substance that takes away life, destroys your liberty and compromises your will to choose become options than you destroy this fundamental understanding of liberty and how it is protected. Drugs enslave people and the public has the right to be defended. I'm big time small gov't, but you will be opening Pandora's Box to the amount of rehab centers, loss of performance in the work-force, and medical bills associated with drugs.

Whew, this is just such a misguided statement, and a rash misinterpretation of the intent of the founding fathers. But then, there were no criminalized narcotics in 1776.

5th The "War on Drugs" is not a war being a waged. I've watched 2 CIA officials, one was the head of the CIA (who stepped down precisely because of this insanity) admit he knew what was being shipped when it was coming. The war of drugs is nothing more than a pretense for a police state.
Here's a good video, but I've seen so much more:
http://youtube.com/watch?v=0z6nY3ySWrk

OK. How about paramilitary invasions of sovereign South American nations by DEA commando units?

So it's not the fight, it's the lack of fight to make a police state. It still does not negate the necessity to stop anarchy or the lack of order.

This doesn't make sense to me. No one is suggesting anarchy, or the decriminalization/legalization of violent crimes against victims here. Murder's still prosecutable as murder. Robbery's still prosecutable as robbery.
What we advocate is that some guy smoking a J or snorting a line in the privacy of his own home should not be thrown in jail with the robbers and murderers. Of course there need to be crimes *related* to drug use. Driving while impaired by alcohol is illegal, and driving while impaired by currently-criminalized drugs ought to be as well. At this point, you are affecting others and not just yourself.

6th Dr. Paul's article about the war on doctors is ok within it's sphere of pain prescriptions, but we are talking about the war on innocent that will be wiped out.

7th Police who break the law does not negate the principles of ethics.

Sorry, but I don't buy it. I'll still stick with RP, but this is wrong, just wrong. Laws should not be repealed because of gov't corruption. Truth isn't error because the person or organization who holds it doesn't live up to it.

You're correct about laws not being repealed because of corruption, and that police corruption doesn't negate ethical standards. The thing is, what you're advocating is continuing criminal persecution of people of whom many have harmed no one, AND maintaining a massive, violent, illegal subculture that can only exist because of the criminalization of drug use and other non-violent crimes. Consider the peak of mafia violence during the prohibition era, and the waning afterwards.

Criminalization of drugs hurts more people than it helps. That is an undeniable fact.

 

[cujothekitten]

1st I never said making laws stop people, but it definitely slows things down. Take a 13 year old, never tried drugs, told drugs kill, but there is a curiosity there. He will more than likely never do hard drugs that kill just because they are illegal. Is this true 100% of the time? Never said, that it certainly slows down the progression of drug use.

No one is talking about making the available to children. We're talking about regulation... like alcohol

2nd The argument that people are going to do it anyway does not negate the principle. People shouldn't get divorced for the good of the children yet they do it anyways. People shouldn't murder others, and police should just follow the law. Ok, bad things happen. But where in any book of true ethical principles does not negate the principle? Arguments of abuse don't negate principles of ethics.

True but there is a right way to handle the situation and a wrong way to handle the situation. You don't throw an addict in jail, you put them in rehab. You don't shield people from the TRUE harm of these drugs, you educate. You don't cost the taxpayers millions of dollars on a drug war that isn't working; you change the plan of attack. The answer isn't tougher penalties it's education, awareness, rehab and regulation.

3rd If drugs are legalized what do you think about your son or daughter at a young age found comatose or dead? It happens now, but the frequency is going to strike a lot closer to home than you imagine.

Again, no one is talking about allowing children to take these drugs. We are talking about regulation and only allowing adults to partake.

4th the Constitution said all men are will have "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness". When any substance that takes away life, destroys your liberty and compromises your will to choose become options than you destroy this fundamental understanding of liberty and how it is protected. Drugs enslave people and the public has the right to be defended. I'm big time small gov't, but you will be opening Pandora's Box to the amount of rehab centers, loss of performance in the work-force, and medical bills associated with drugs.

Again, I have the right to my life, liberty (freedom) and pursuit of happiness... how can I not be allowed to take drugs. If I choose to take them then I am exorcising freedom and happiness. Drugs don't always kill, I've taken my fair share in the past and I'm fine. You're basically talking about restricting freedoms to prevent me from hurting my self. This is part of a nanny state.

So it's not the fight, it's the lack of fight to make a police state. It still does not negate the necessity to stop anarchy or the lack of order.

You do realize many drugs weren't outlawed until the 60's right? Would you call it anarchy before then?

6th Dr. Paul's article about the war on doctors is ok within it's sphere of pain prescriptions, but we are talking about the war on innocent that will be wiped out.

The person isn't innocent if they choose to ingest a drug they know is harmful. It's about personal responsibility.

 

[Seth M.]

And the states would be more efficient at controlling it.

I am actually against legalizing drugs, but I say let the states see what programs will suit them better. If one state's system seems to work better at making the overall population better, then I imagine other states will follow.

I think the state's are supposed to be miniature American experiments in society, all doing their own version of what they believe government should do. What works best will prevail.

I really like your perspective on this issue.. and would like to add, I believe that is what the original designers of this country intended.

Drugs do kill people. Sure, but that is an effect of the real issue or problem. The real problem is education. I do not think that crack will be sold at Walmart that is ridiculous.. really, the citizens of this country would not allow it. ESPECIALLY if the real problem was answered. When the citizens are educated on the effects of said "drug" then its place in the market would be minor. Take for instance, black widows. It is taught that the black widow can seriously make you ill and some cases kill you. Walmart does not support selling of black widows because NO ONE WILL BUY them.
You have to be licensed to drive a vehicle on state roads. And the state requires you to be educated on the use of a vehicle etc.. see where I am going... There are answers to this problem and prohibition only makes it worse.

Your local illegal drug dealer is not going to and does not educate their buyer on the full short term and long term effects of their illegal prescription. Take that out of their hands. Push for education and get the federal government OUT of the drug business.

my answer:
Abolish prohibition and allow states to regulate at their discretion. examples
---
Cocaine license. 6 week course, fully educate on the effects of cocaine use. (long and short term)
covered by laws exactly like alcohol
meaning...
public intoxication applies
driving under the influence applies
etc...
---
Alternately if the local populous like prohibition and vote it into law then
Cocaine is still illegal.
---

The government can not enforce this "War on Drugs" and the fact that there are illegal drug use without education not only kills people..

but it funds Gangs, and Terrorists, fueling the black market

 

[DjLoTi]

Mike, there have been a lot of logical and informing arguments that have been thrown your way.

I understand your problem with 'legalizing drugs'. I too also believe that cocaine should not be legal, as should meth, heroin, and ecstasy.

I don't think Ron Paul is going to try too hard to legalize those drugs. I think he's just going to stop the war on drugs. I mean, honestly. The war on drugs is really just a war on marijuana. Marijuana is the most widely used drug, and it is also the most widely criminalize offense in relation to the drug war.

If he leaves the power to the states, all that really means is that the 13 states who have already legalized medical cannabis will not be held in check by federal laws. I don't think it's as extreme as 'crack littered on the streets'