Ron Paul on a controversial topic

Recently, Ron Paul gave a speech regarding his stance on the legalization/decriminalization of all drugs from marijuana to heroin, and the potential legalization of prostitution based on an individual state's laws. In a sense, this would end the drug war, pardon all non-violent offenders incarcerated for small drug-related crime, and overall boost the liberties of the people.

"Many prisoners are non-violent and should be treated as patients with addictions, not as criminals. Irrational mandatory minimal sentences have caused a great deal of harm. We have non-violent drug offenders doing life sentences, and there is no room to incarcerate the rapists and murderers."

If this movement where drug use was legalized occurred, it would create a massive economical boost merely from companies attempting to commercialize it. Not to mention hemp being legalized as well - We would go back to the good old ages where almost everything that used pulp or cellulose was made of hemp. I have always been neutral in American politics as best I could, but the way I see it in the upcoming elections - Paul is practically the only sane, reasonable voice out there in Congress. But I also take anything he says with a grain of salt, albeit tiny.

- After all, he IS a politician.

I love Ron Paul. He seems to be the only candidate that isn't a copy-paste version of Bush and Obama.

It's just a shame that if he gets elected president, the vice president would quickly take over.

i talked to someone about this a few days ago. this person was so upset that Paul wants to make all these drugs legal. people act as if as soon as all these things are legal everyone is going to turn into coc aine addicts. if you dont do it now you probably wont do it even if it was legal. and if you DO do it now than you dont end up wasting our money sitting in jail for using it.

reply to post by Mach5

If this movement where drug use was legalized occurred, it would create a massive economical boost merely from companies attempting to commercialize it. Not to mention hemp being legalized as well - We would go back to the good old ages where almost everything that used pulp or cellulose was made of hemp

True, however it would never happen. The textile industry and the automotive industry to name a few, would take a substancial hit if hemp products were the norm.

www.torontohemp.com...

"Oh, yea, I need the government to take care of me. I don't want to use heroine so I need these laws."

I love that line. And the way he said it.

I support this, and I am not a drug user. I think there are a lot of people who have this mentality, that anyone who wants to see drugs legalized is a drug user, and that is extremely narrow-minded in my view. Do not make these drugs legal because people are going to do them anyway, make them legal because the war on drugs was a failure from the start, and is costing too much money for something that is not working.

Legalizing drugs would effectively put the illegal players out of business. You have to understand that no matter how much drugs are seized every single year, the cartels supplying the drugs only need a small amount to get through to continue making BILLIONS of dollars every single year. There is about a 1000% markup on these products, so that is like manufacturing something for $1, and selling it for $1000.

You cannot stop that. It is impossible. There are record numbers of drug users. Something has to change. Not only will legalizing the manufacture of drugs by reputable companies make the drugs "safer," since people will know what they are getting, the cartels will be put out of business because they cannot feasibly make enough money to justify continuing their operations, and the American taxpayers will save BILLIONS of dollars annually.

Use that money to police our borders, as that would be a good trade-off in my opinion, or use it for something else that will benefit the people. I think the states should have the right to control the manufacture of illicit drugs, and not the federal government.

There will also be billions in new taxes generated. Legalizing drugs would make America extremely prosperous. The people who want to do them will do so regardless, and there will not be that many people who will do them simply because they are "legal." There will be some, but not enough to bring the "downfall" of America.

I have not even mentioned how much the crime rate will decrease. Drugs would be cheaper, which means robberies will decrease. Gang related violence due to control of the drug markets here in the states would drastically decrease. The amount of people in jail and prison would drop dramatically, et cetera, et cetera.

The only question I have is "why hasn't this been done already?"

Its not that Ron Paul is "for drug use or prostitution", though he is against the war on drugs and does sincerely believe in freedom.

His argument is very simple. The federal government doesnt have the authority to do most of the things that it does.

The Ninth Amendment, any powers not specifically given to the federal government, belong to the states. Its that simple.

EVERY public servant swears an oath to the Constitution, but he's the only one who seems to care about it.

So where in the Constitution does it say that the federal government has the authority to prohibit drug use? It doesnt. It is therefore a states' issue.

See how easy that is?

Now when alcohol was banned in the United States, the government at the time actually had enough respect for the Constitution to add an Amendment, the Prohibition, which was later repealed.

I love the applause he gets.
And hell, if he gets president and changes the country into one of true freedom, then i would seriously consider moving there. Seeing as my country may or may not follow that example.

We should, considering we had decriminalized cannabis for awhile there. We can grow hemp here in canada though, but its not subsidized at all. And i barely see any products for hemp related things.. Sigh.

I believe it is a personal choice.
Drug users are gunna use, regardless of the legality of it. Stop funneling billions into the war on drugs (lots of which is probably profit to some businessman somewhere) and start treating them, which wouldn't be nearly as much money.

Treat it like alcohol. Dont drive inebriated. Dont be out in public inebriated (at least excessively). And there would be cheaper, cleaner 'drugs', therefore, STDs that are transmitted through needle would decrease exponentially. Here, i have a relevant link:

Link

Its from scientificamerican,

In the face of a growing number of deaths and cases of HIV linked to drug abuse, the Portuguese government in 2001 tried a new tack to get a handle on the problem—it decriminalized the use and possession of heroin, coc aine, marijuana, '___' and other illicit street drugs. The theory: focusing on treatment and prevention instead of jailing users would decrease the number of deaths and infections.

Five years later, the number of deaths from street drug overdoses dropped from around 400 to 290 annually, and the number of new HIV cases caused by using dirty needles to inject heroin, coc aine and other illegal substances plummeted from nearly 1,400 in 2000 to about 400 in 2006, according to a report released recently by the Cato Institute, a Washington, D.C, libertarian think tank.

I hope this doesn't break t&c, just a news story with some stats about how its going for them.
Its a fairly sharp decrease in such a short amount of time. More people going to treatment.

And another link to a similar story on timescience: Source

reply to post by Mach5


As long as he makes marijuana legal in every state, I'll be happy. Not because I may or may not smoke it, but because it has caused less damage than most legal substances in our history.

Let's scrap the bottle and white dust, and give that green plant free run of the country.

reply to post by gladtobehere


Exactly. I don't understand why people don't get the concept of freedom. It's not that difficult. Freedom to make your own choices, be it good or bad, as long as you're not affecting others negatively. That is ultimate freedom, and the way it should be. Ron Paul 2012! The only rational choice... period. Take some power back from the globalist scum.

reply to post by colbyforce


I understand why they don't want freedom.

Because they are afraid. Fear is the primary emotion involved.

They want to control everyone else and make them live life the way they see fit. They are intolerant and reject the way of life of anyone except themselves. They think they own your body and have the authority to tell you what you can and cannot do with it.

They are afraid that if they lose this control, that we will all die and society will collapse.
But to debunk their irrational fear, all you have to do is ask yourself, "What is happening right now already?".

Awesome, just awesome.

I can't complile any other words than those, to describe how elequent, true, and right he is.

Well Paul has the most sensible position on this out of all mainstream politicians. Not only will it reduce crime and have a positive effect on society that some have already pointed out, but us (or the government) being in control of drugs means that the number of overdoses will be reduced. If there is also a legal allowance (can't be too small or illegal routes will still exist) we can make sure that people don't bum out on drugs.

I think its positive that we start to treat people like adults, instead of trying to making things illegal. The fact is that if somebody wants something bad enough they will be able to get it. If it is not possible to win the drugs war then surely the best thing is to have control over the drugs supply and to drive the criminals out of business.

Of course the criminals don't just vanish, they will find something else to peddle, but that isn't an excuse as to why we shouldn't try to win this battle.

Final observation though. I imagine that some on the right won't be happy with Paul's position, I mean the moral right wingers who (subconciously) believe that drugs are so great that if they are legalised then everybody will take them 24-7. So, this sensible policy from Paul might even lose more votes than it wins.

Star and flag for you op .
Ron Paul is The Truth. And is the only person that can give America true freedom, and then hopefully alot of other country leaders will follow his example. And we will all know true freedom . GO RON PAUL, man i wish i could vote for this guy .

I just finished a similar response in another thread where I suggested that TPTB or the mainstream political process, media, corporations, and all, are like a huge heroin addict and Ron Paul represents rehab or getting clean. They are so blinded by their addiction they will do whatever it takes to protect their interests. Violence, lying, cheating stealing, manipulation, backstabbing, debt, bankruptcy and corruption are all on the table of possibilities to them. I love a good underdog story but this one is ridiculous. Godspeed Dr. Paul

Originally posted by SGTSECRET
i talked to someone about this a few days ago. this person was so upset that Paul wants to make all these drugs legal. people act as if as soon as all these things are legal everyone is going to turn into coc aine addicts. if you dont do it now you probably wont do it even if it was legal. and if you DO do it now than you dont end up wasting our money sitting in jail for using it.

The thing that gets on my nerves most about this response is that Paul's ONLY aiming at federal laws. I can probably tell you his opinion on the rest, but does anyone REALLY think all the states are going to suddenly go "Oh, there's no more federal laws against it, drugs for everyone WHHEEEEEEEEEE!!!!!!!"?

Of course not. I believe *all* states currently have their own laws against these things, and still would even if Paul got it addressed on the federal level. I can certainly hope that the states would wise up quickly and put more effective policies in place, but the fear is simply ridiculous.

I won't even bother getting into the very valid arguments for policy changes otherwise as I don't want the thread memoryholed, but this whole topic and the irrational fear it inspires never ceases to amaze me. Hearing people basically say "I'm so afraid that people might do certain things, I'd rather continue policies that have only wasted money and lives while providing less regulation, oversight, and safety to these things while actually making them cheaper and more available! And yes, I'm effectively retarded, thanks!" simply blows my mind.

Here's what it boils down to.

To determine what the Federal Government was created to do, its purpose, its intended function, one need look no further than the Constitution. Everyone knows the Preamble. Well... maybe not absolutely everyone. It says the government is being formed to:

Form a more perfect union
Establish justice
Ensure domestic tranquility
Provide for the common defense
Promote the general welfare
Secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity

And that's it. Where in there do you see any justification for something like the Drug Enforcement Agency? Does it establish justice? Of a sort, its own justice. What effect does it have on domestic tranquility? Quite a jarring one, I'd say; pretty much the opposite of ensuring it. Common defense? From what, ourselves? It's pretty obvious the general welfare would be far better off without them, given the tax revenue legal drugs would generate; would you rather keep drugs illegal, or get to keep ten percent more of your income? And they do nothing but take liberty away from people, don't they? And therefore, the power wielded by the DEA is unconstitutional because the Constitution doesn't allow for it.

And that's Ron's point. That's why he's called a "Constitutionalist." The Federal Government should have no right to tell the states what to do. It's only supposed to sort of glue them all together, make their interactions smoother. Instead it's taken over. It bullies the states into doing what it says. It is the exact opposite of what it was intended to be. And don't even get me started on the Federal Reserve/IRS.

Still, if Ron Paul did manage to get himself elected President, he'd stop being trustable. Like all the others, everything he said he'd do to get himself elected would remain undone. That's because Presidents don't run the Federal Government. They don't make the decisions. They read scripts, they sign what they're told to sign, they follow their orders. Under the thumb of the true rulers of our little blue dot called Earth, Ron Paul would find all that fighting spirit squished out of him. If he defies them, he'll be dealt with. I sure wouldn't want to be President...

Another example of a Ron Paul policy stance I 100% agree with, and 100% believe he would never be able to deliver.

Once elected a presidential candidate's promises go 'out the window'.

Legalize drugs, end the fed, end war . . .

They all sound great, but RP will not have the power or will to do these things once he is in office, that is ALWAYS how it comes down.

The things he WILL be able to get done, as he will have the support of his party (the republican party) is strip environmental protections, strip funding for education, wear away at abortion rights, further consolidate economic power for the corporations (he is rated in the top 10 policy makers by this group, still looking for the original source but I saw the study published), and on and on. Just add in any standard republican policy and RP will show up to help try to make it happen as POTUS.

Sorry to be so harsh but RP is a life long republican, he may have some fringe notions but at the end of the day he is a team player demonstrated by decades of playing with the same team. . .

Yep, let's keep pot illegal, a drug that actually has medicinal value but drink, drink, drink til ya puke and kill a whole family while you drive home from the football game!

Let's keep heroin illegal but pharma companies create new forms of Oxy every month!

Drugs are legal my friends. It's just which ones our government, who is controlled by the lobbyists, choose to let us use...and abuse!

reply to post by maddog99

And lest we forget: Coffee is a drug. Broccoli is a drug. Water is a drug. Any substance that has an effect on human physiology is by definition a drug. Why do they pick and choose which ones are allowed? People die from overdoses of water, for God's sake; we call it "drowning." Where's the moral outrage against our deadly lakes and rivers, against backyard swimming pools? Why isn't coffee regulated? People have DIED from overdoses of caffeine, I guarantee you, but nobody has ever died from an overdose of marijuana. Why isn't Juan Valdez a pariah as reviled as any other drug dealer?

Because coffee can't be used to make fuel for our cars and clothing and paper, that's why. Industrial hemp has NO psychoactive compounds in it, none. It cannot get you high. All it's good for is its fibers and biomass, which are extremely useful and replenishable in a single growing season. Law enforcement's opposition to it is that it looks the same as the kind of hemp that does get you high. "We couldn't enforce that!" they complain, so everyone just has to do without cheap fuel, clothing, and paper. And protein; hemp seeds have more protein in them than ground beef, whether they grow into drugless hemp or drug-full hemp (the seeds never contain drugs, only DNA and food in a crunchy shell). Legal drugs would destroy profits for a great many corporations; therefore, since corporations control politics (via lobbyists and their bribes), drugs will never be legal.

And there are other reasons, too. Legal marijuana means no more under-the-table profits for the CIA, who ships most drugs into America. That's how they fund so-called "black ops" that no one in Congress has heard of. They don't need funding approval if they're getting those funds on the sly, do they? Legal drugs would destroy that system; therefore, drugs will never be legal.

We, the People, are being screwed because those in power worship money and couldn't care less about us. Nobody we vote into office will have any chance of changing the status quo, because those offices aren't where such decisions are made. If we could vote for who gets to run the World Bank and the IMF and the BIS, we might have a chance. But we're only given the power to elect political officials, who become controlled by corporations virtually as soon as the voting is over. Dow is keeping pot illegal, not Barack Obama. It's DuPont, not Eric Holder. Why anyone still thinks their vote matters in the slightest is beyond me. "Would you like the douche, or the turd sandwich?" Republican or Democrat or independent, Christian or atheist, liberal or conservative, left or right, up or down, whatever they are, it does not matter. They do what they're paid to do... and since we only pay them $165,000 a year, but lobbyists can give them millions under the table, guess who wins? "He who has the gold makes the rules."

There's nothing good about the Federal Government anymore, nothing. It doesn't have our best interests in mind. It sure isn't serving me, but I don't own a multi-national corporation. I sure don't feel "represented" by my Congress critters (at the Federal or State level), do you? I don't think I ever have been. I'm a minority in a very great many categories. Who cares about the minority in a Democracy? Even if it's 49% of the people who want a certain thing, if 51% think they shouldn't have it, that's the end of the discussion. "Sorry, medical marijuana supporters, no pot for anyone's glaucoma, because think of the children!! We did vote on it, you know!"

Why does anyone still live here?