RP Will Legalize Drugs?

[mdh]

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

I would say that I generally oppose the licensing tactic. Education can be done without supporting the database state practice of licensing everything. I just don't think people need this kind of hand-holding - and definitly not from the government! Certainly private entities will make education materials available to those who want them. In the end, it will really come down to the people responsible for raising a child to impart to them good sense, moderation, and responsibility. If they are unsuccessful in this, the child is likely going to end up either figuring it out for themself or finding some way to get themself hurt/maimed/killed/into trouble with or without criminalized drugs!

On a comical side note; there was a time when the government issued marijuana licenses. It was illegal to possess marijuana without it, but you couldn't get the license without the marijuana in hand, so you had a very weird end run around legality there.

 

[DjLoTi]

I really just think Ron Paul will give the power to the states. All that means is that the 13 states who have legalized medical marijuana will not be held against federal law.

 

[buffalokid777]

Drugs will NEVER be legalized...

If they were...how would the CIA get money for black ops without congressional approval for overthrowing other regimes who mess with the corporate interests of big oil???

 

[SlapItHigh]

http://www.libertypost.org/cgi-bin/readart.cgi?ArtNum=181414 - Love this Milton Friedman speech. MikelovesGod, please give it a read and tell me what you think.

 

[Seth M.]

I would say that I generally oppose the licensing tactic. Education can be done without supporting the database state practice of licensing everything. I just don't think people need this kind of hand-holding - and definitly not from the government! Certainly private entities will make education materials available to those who want them. In the end, it will really come down to the people responsible for raising a child to impart to them good sense, moderation, and responsibility. If they are unsuccessful in this, the child is likely going to end up either figuring it out for themself or finding some way to get themself hurt/maimed/killed/into trouble with or without criminalized drugs!

On a comical side note; there was a time when the government issued marijuana licenses. It was illegal to possess marijuana without it, but you couldn't get the license without the marijuana in hand, so you had a very weird end run around legality there.

I can totally be swayed to your position.. I just think I would have to see it in practice... lol.. I mean there aren't directions on a shampoo bottle for no reason at all.. some people just fail to understand on their own will.. protection is a little much in my opinion but insisting on education is where I am at right now.

I never knew that there was a marijuana license. When one looks into the cannabis topic they will find that it is illegal now for certain reasons and it has more to do with money in peoples pockets than public welfare. I personally don't like the effects myself but some people really discover happiness using it. More power to'em. Oh and I'd wear hemp clothing if it were priced fair.. then pass the clothes down to my grandchildren.

 

[kaligula]

Even Bob Barr now belives the federal government should no longer regulate narcotics

There really is no thing as "Drug Legalization" per se; the argument is that the federal government should not be regulating/prohibiting them. That position would essentially allow narcotics to be regulated like alcohol--at the state and local levels.

State laws with respect to alochol usually determine where it can be bought and sold, the times when it can be purchased. And at the "county" levels, you still have "dry counties," even in states where it's legal. And certainly, legalization at the state level doesn't mean that moonshine is legal.

In any event, I doubt any state would legalize cocaine and heroin. I doubt, frankly, any state would even legalize marijuana. About the only thing you would see is probably half the states legalizing medical marijuana.

 

[mikelovesgod]

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.

Ok, well if he is not for the legalization but against the "war" on it I have no problem whatsoever with that position.

 

[SeanEdwards]

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 statement doesn't make any sense to me at all. It's illogical.

All I can suggest to you friend, is to spend some time reading up on the founders notions of liberty and the role of government.

Also, just because Ron Paul opposes the FEDERAL war on drugs, on the basis that it is unconstitutional (as well as being wrong-headed). There isn't any particular barrier to the states adopting whatever fascist anti-drug scheme you might like. Public beheading of pot heads could serve as an effective drug use deterrent, as well being a source of tourism revenue. Or maybe not.

 

[CJLauderdale4]

Historical perspective: at one point in the early 1900's, 40-50% of Americans were hooked on various amounts of Heroin or Morphine. This is what initially prompted the Fed to regulate the apothecaries and pharmacies.

But, like most emergencies, the Fed knee-jerked too far and eventually prohibited alcohol altogether too because it was addictive to some.

There must be a happy medium, to protect people (especially children), but also allow liberty (freedom with responsibility)....

 

[CrownThyGood]

http://www.ciadrugs.com/

something to look at.

 

[lucky]

Yes

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.

 

[quickmike]

DRUGS ARE BAAAAD MMMKAAAAY? - South Park

 

[CJLauderdale4]

just like the alcohol knee-jerk in the 1920's, I think we'll find that some drugs need to be prescribed, and others are virtually harmless when used responsibly.

 

[mesler]

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.

I do not smoke. Not because I can't, but because I think it's nasty and addictive. I think the 12,000,000,000/year they spend on prohibition and law enforcement should be halved and go into research and education. Tell kids exactly what is happening to their brains. Hire crack-heads and jaw-less meth addicts to talk to kids in school. Show people what happens.

 

[Revolution9]

A note here. For those familair with MK-ULTRA and Monarch mind control programs be apprised that Marijuana was the ONLY substance that they were NOT allowed to partake of. They encouraged ecstacy, cocaine, heroin, the various amphetamines, legal serotonin uptake inhibitors, the diazepam families, barbituates,m biphetamines etc.. The reason marijuana was NOT allowed to these victims of compartmentalising mind control was that it would destroy the programming and reunite the split-into-parts ego/personality sending all that black ops money down the sewer where it rose in stinkng effulgence from.

Best Regards
Randy

 

[lucky]

Huh?

A note here. For those familair with MK-ULTRA and Monarch mind control programs be apprised that Marijuana was the ONLY substance that they were NOT allowed to partake of. They encouraged ecstacy, cocaine, heroin, the various amphetamines, legal serotonin uptake inhibitors, the diazepam families, barbituates,m biphetamines etc.. The reason marijuana was NOT allowed to these victims of compartmentalising mind control was that it would destroy the programming and reunite the split-into-parts ego/personality sending all that black ops money down the sewer where it rose in stinkng effulgence from.

Best Regards
Randy

Well ok then.

 

[Revolution9]

I took the opportunity to tune up a little speech for the nominated Drug Czar of McRomneyson's Inauguration on a BizarroWorld Earth.


THERE IS A DARK CLOUD HANGING OVER AMERICA AS THE YOUTH
OF OUR GREAT LAND TURN AWAY FROM THE GOVERNMENT AS THE FINAL
ARBITERS OF THEIR EXISTENCE. WE KNOW THAT THE PROPER
POLICING OF YOUNG MINDS AT THIS CRUCIAL JUNCTURE WILL
NECESSARILY BRING ABOUT THE DYSFUNCTION OF UNIVERSAL LAW. IS
THIS WHAT WE WANT? OF COURSE WE DO. NOW, WE ALL KNOW THROUGH
OUR MASSIVE CAMPAIGN OF INFORMING THE PEOPLE OF WHAT WE
THINK THEY SHOULD HEAR, THAT CRIMINALS, THOSE WHO BREAK THE
LAWS AND REFUSE TO LIVE BY OUR RULES, ARE A SCOURGE AND THEY
NEED US TO CRACK THE WHIP OF DEMAGOGUERY AND EXTEND THE
TENTACLE OF COMPASSION IN AN EFFORT TO SHOW THEM THE ERROR
OF THEIR WAYS. THIS TENTACULAR CONTAINMENT IS A NECESSARY
PRECIPICE OF PERIL OVER WHICH WE HOLD THE HOTFOOT OF
SOCIETY.

AS YOU KNOW WE CANNOT HAVE TOO MANY SUSPECTS WHO
ARE INNOCENT OF A CRIME. BY ITS NATURE THAT IS A
CONTRADICTORY STATEMENT.. IF A PERSON IS INNOCENT OF A CRIME
HE IS NOT A SUSPECT. MOST INNOCENT PEOPLE ARE VERY HAPPY TO
TALK TO THE POLICE. THEY ARE MORE THAN PLEASED TO GIVE UP
THEIR VALUABLE WORKDAY TO ESTABLISH THEIR INNOCENCE, SO THAT
THEY ARE NO LONGER A SUSPECT. THIS MINOR LOSS IN DAILY
PRODUCTIVITY WILL RESULT IN AN IMPLICIT OVERALL LEVEL OF
INTRINSIC SECURITY MAKING IT AN ACCEPTABLE COST OF
CONDUCTING OPERATION MORON THUGS.

WE IN THE FLAW REINFORCEMENT COMMUNITY WOULD LIKE TO
THANK PRESIDENT HILLARRACK McROMNEYSON FOR HIS CONTINUED
AND UNPRECEDENTED BALLOONING OF THE FLAW REINFORCEMENT BUDGET.
HILLARRACK McROMNEYSON INDUSTRIES HAS LONG BEEN A MANUFACTURER
OF TACTICAL ANTIBALATRONIC* INFILTRATION AND BOZOMETRIC TELEMETRY
DEVICES, AIDING THE FLAW REINFORCEMENT COMMUNITY IN PINPOINTING
DANGEROUS ACTIVITIES. {HE IS POINTING AT A TECH DIAGRAM OF A CLOWN SMOKING A JOINT) .

ZION PHARMACEUTICALS HAS LONG BEEN THE FORERUNNER IN PSYCHOPHARMACOLOGICAL
SYNTHESIS OF DEPENDENCE AND MANIPULATIVE PECUNIARY TRANSFERENCE. AND SPEAKING
OF DEPENDENCE THIS IS AN OPPORTUNE MOMENT TO INTRODUCE THE NEXT FIRST LADY
OF THE UNITED SNAKES OF AMERICA. MRS RUDY MCROMNEYSON!!

Well..ya think I could write speeches for the opposition?

*balatron- 1700's term for a juggling clown

Best Regards
Randy

 

[MGS]

Ok... I just read up on Paul's stance on drugs and I'm now wavering on the guy. You cannot legalize insanity and anarchy. Institutionalized legality of things which can kill you easily is insane.

Cigarettes and alcohol are legal.

 

[Anne]

Ok... I just read up on Paul's stance on drugs and I'm now wavering on the guy. You cannot legalize insanity and anarchy. Institutionalized legality of things which can kill you easily is insane.

Isn't it every person's choice whether or not he should ruin his body with drugs? Why does the government have any say in what you put in your body???

 

[Anne]

A note here. For those familair with MK-ULTRA and Monarch mind control programs be apprised that Marijuana was the ONLY substance that they were NOT allowed to partake of. They encouraged ecstacy, cocaine, heroin, the various amphetamines, legal serotonin uptake inhibitors, the diazepam families, barbituates,m biphetamines etc.. The reason marijuana was NOT allowed to these victims of compartmentalising mind control was that it would destroy the programming and reunite the split-into-parts ego/personality sending all that black ops money down the sewer where it rose in stinkng effulgence from.

Best Regards
Randy

Bingo! There have also been studies that show caffeine is much more harmful to the brain than any other drug. Have you seen the pictures of spiders' webs on caffeine?