Ron Paul: Repeal the War on Drugs -- just like we repealed Prohibition

[lutherblsstt]

damn TT did not take you very long to resort to personal attacks filling up your long and unconvincing posts (that really need more line breaks if you want anybody to read that crap).

That is his trademark,he cannot help himself!

 

[lutherblsstt]

35 years after Nixon started the war on drugs, we have over one million non-violent drug offenders living behind bars. The War on Drugs has become the longest and most costly war in American history, the question has become, how much more can the country endure? Inspired by the death of four family members from “legal drugs” Texas filmmaker Kevin Booth sets out to discover why the Drug War has become such a big failure. Three and a half years in the making, the film follows gang members, former DEA agents, CIA officers, narcotics officers, judges, politicians, prisoners and celebrities. Most notably the film befriends Freeway Ricky Ross; the man many accuse for starting the Crack epidemic, who after being arrested discovered that his cocaine source had been working for the CIA.

American Drug War shows how money, power and greed have corrupted not just drug pushers and dope fiends, but an entire government. More importantly, it shows what can be done about it. This is not some ‘pro-drug’ stoner film, but a collection of expert testimonials from the ground troops on the front lines of the drug war, the ones who are fighting it and the ones who are living it.

After 4 years of production including several sold out test screenings in New York, Austin & Los Angeles, the final version of American Drug War: The Last White Hope is locked and loaded. (Excerpt from americandrugwar.com)

Invalid Link Removed

 

[HereToStudy]

35 years after Nixon started the war on drugs, we have over one million non-violent drug offenders living behind bars. The War on Drugs has become the longest and most costly war in American history, the question has become, how much more can the country endure? Inspired by the death of four family members from “legal drugs” Texas filmmaker Kevin Booth sets out to discover why the Drug War has become such a big failure. Three and a half years in the making, the film follows gang members, former DEA agents, CIA officers, narcotics officers, judges, politicians, prisoners and celebrities. Most notably the film befriends Freeway Ricky Ross; the man many accuse for starting the Crack epidemic, who after being arrested discovered that his cocaine source had been working for the CIA.

American Drug War shows how money, power and greed have corrupted not just drug pushers and dope fiends, but an entire government. More importantly, it shows what can be done about it. This is not some ‘pro-drug’ stoner film, but a collection of expert testimonials from the ground troops on the front lines of the drug war, the ones who are fighting it and the ones who are living it.

After 4 years of production including several sold out test screenings in New York, Austin & Los Angeles, the final version of American Drug War: The Last White Hope is locked and loaded. (Excerpt from americandrugwar.com)

Invalid Link Removed

**** yes, I am a huge documentary buff, and I have not seen this one yet, will check it out at some point. Thank you, reps.

BTW, I think TexasTitan gave up on spewing random propaganda...Can't fight facts.

 

[CDB]

Okay naive morons. Go spend some time around rehab clinics.

Go spend some time around people who use drugs without any problems whatsoever. Focussing on one portion of the population of drug users/abusers and drawing conclusions from that and then calling others 'naive' is about as moronic as you can get without literally ramming your own head up your ass. And incidentally, you don't help nonviolent addicts by pricing their intoxicant at black market levels and then throwing them in prison with hardened criminals. So if your concern is the plight of those addicts, why don't you do them a favor and stop making every effort to make their lives even worse than they already are.

Go watch crack heads steal anything for money.

If they weren't charged black market prices for their drugs fewer of them would turn to crime to support their habit, meaning less robbery and/or burlgary for the same population of crack addicts. But don't let little things like logic and rationality get in the way of a good ignorant rant.

Watch a heroin addict shoot up behind an alley.

Might be able to afford an apartment if he wasn't being charged ridiculous prices for heroin.

Watch a coke head freak out when they need a fix.

Let him have his fix and he won't freak out.

Go watch someone suck **** to get more acid. Ive seen all of these in person, save for the acid, I wasnt actually watching. You are all ****ing idiots who have no concept of what people are getting into. You want to legalize this ****?

Blah blah blah blah blah and more blah. The problems you point to are either caused or exercerbated by prohibition. Nor has there ever in the history of the planet been a successful prohibition.

What would be the harm in introducing highly addictive substances into a society where excess and hedonism are the cornerstones of our contemporary culture?

This is the 'flood gate' argument and it is pure bull****. You are not 'introducing' these substances into our society, they are already here. Economics tells us that if prices go down there will certainly be an increase in users, but history also shows that demand for drugs is largely inelastic which means people aren't very responsive to price changes, which is why it takes drastic and draconian laws to affect drug use, and which also means the increase in users will be minimal, however the decrease in crime surrounding the manufacture, sale, distribution and use of drugs would be phenomenal.

Fine, my tax dollars wont.

I don't support using your tax dollars for such services.

It cracks me up that California is campaigning to ban smoking cigarettes and is trying to legalize weed, among other things. Just lol.

Unlike tobacco, marijuana doesn't have to be smoked. It is smoked because that's the most efficient way to deliver the effects which means self dosing is easier and you get more for your money. If it didn't cost as much as it does, if it were legal, there would be standardization and quality control as exists in other industries which would make eating it more reliable and there would also be research into vaporizors because the active ingredients don't need to be combusted to get them into your lungs. Hence, no smoking, no cancer, just Doritos.

Your analysis of drug policy is sophmoric, idiotic and wrong. It implies that the government prohibition is effective which it isn't, and can be maintained which it can't. Every 'success' in squelching momentary supply raises the long term profit incentive for remaining and new suppliers to provide more. Every ratcheting up of the legal consequences means more nonviolent users are going to prison when they shouldn't and all the attendant costs of such, and means increasingly less ethical and violent people get involved in the production and sale of the substances. All the while the prohibition execerbates the very problems it's supposed to solve and then the worsening of conditions is used as an excuse by prohibitionists such as yourself for more of the same policies that either caused the conditions or made them worse.

Alcohol prohibition did not stop drinking and did not stop alcoholism. It lead to a very small decrease in overall alcohol consumption, shifted the ratio of users away from beer and wine and more toward harder liquor, and actually lead to an increase in alcoholism. Manufacturers were pushed out of legitimate society and as such were accountable to no one and started using increasingly questionable methods to speed up production and make products that harmed and literally killed users and left no legal recourse for survivors or family members or estates. Most notably, the violence surrounding the manufacture, distribution, sale, and even the use of alcohol rose in lockstep with the severity of the attempts to quash it until people finally got a ****ing clue and legalized it again.

In other words you are wrong. Facts show you are wrong. History shows you are wrong. And persistent belief in something that is blatantly false and self defeating like continuing drug prohibition shows you are 'naive' to put it politely. And the simple fact that all the problems you indentify are in fact happening and consistently getting worse under and during the policy of prohibition which you support hasn't clued you in to the fact that you might be off base on this issue, well it speaks volumes as to your mental capacity.

 

[HereToStudy]

:clap2:

Game. Set. Match.

 

[TexasTitan]

No, The "Personal insult" thing is not a cop out. It is actually about keeping this site to adult discussion. If you want we could see what David Dunn's or Wyatt Earp's feelings on usage of "****ing idiots" in the political discussions, when no incitement of such an argument was proposed. In fact, me and David Dunn have seen each other as polar opposites at times in a political sense, yet neither of us have ever even considered crossing the line in term of personal attacks, because we happen to try and be respectful members of the community, and their are numerous members on this site that would back that up.

For that to be true, there needs to be a baseline of respect or caring. I have neither. I dont back up what I say because I understand the reality that nothing any of us do without the command of millions of dollars will ever matter as far as impacting change. I dont care enough to try to convince anyone here. Happy go lucky namby pamby land fantasies just piss me off.

WOOOOOOOSSSSHHH! Someone missed the sarcasm.
Either way, here is the main flaw in the argument you presented. I posted sources, from both sides (Again, even the DEA was sourced), and you presented opinion. If I need to explain to you the difference between how you and I presented our arguments, there is no need to continue this discussion.

See above.

Unfortunately, I won't lower myself in this argument to "I heard" or "I was told" or "word on the street," but rather will posts actual sources.



Again, thanks for trying.


Oh man, they are a damn bible for this ****. We'll see what your dime bag costs when its done.

Has Alcohol led children to Heroin? Has cigarettes led children to crack cocaine? First off, a dealer will sell to anybody who has cash in hand. Having Marijuana legalized, means it will be age controlled, and harder to get for children. But hey, its not my style to make a claim without backing it up:

Sourcing people who fit what you want to be said is great and all, but again, its just slanted speculation. My point is say you take an average pot dealer, I guarantee he knows people into harder **** that deal harder **** just by association based on the substances. The drug itself doesnt bridge that gap.

I LOATHE this argument. Habit forming and addictive are two different things. If we banned everything can can be this form of addictive, then we should ban soda, junk food, gambling, Video Games (Think World of Warcraft), Internet (I myself probably have this addiction), shopping, working (work addictions do exist), hell even weight lifting can be habit forming addictive for people. Anything you do everyday, rinse and repeat, will become a part of your lifestyle. Marijuana is no different then any thing else I have listed.

Does soda impair your ability to drive? Does junk food impair your judgment? Gambling is banned in many places. Again, those things do not impact your mind in as significant a way as pot.

Nothing can be said for sure, however, there is no doubt that the legalization of marijuana would benefit the state, in at least some way. We will look at the proposals from California. First off, lets see how much California is currently spending on enforcement:

I cant wait. It will remove the dregs of society from where I live. Make it readily available and cheap so they can subsist and smoke all day. Cant wait to see how this will impact welfare and government support.

So by no longer needing to wrongfully arrest, prosecute, and jail someone for marijuana, the state is saving over 200 million. Nice. Now we are taxing the pot, and collecting money for the state on every ounce/joint sold.

You do realize the depth of californias budget gap right?

Oh please to the medicinal benefits. Invalid Link Removed. No one claims it to be a "cure all," but the extent of which can benefit from a flower is insane. If a supplement company were to discover a herb that had as many effects on the bodybuilding world, you would be singing its praises.

As for the mind altering not equaling freedom, why then are you ok with cigarettes? They are insanely addictive, and although they offer only a very short "high," they still are a leading cause of death in the United States. Dont get me wrong, I am not anti-smoking, but I do prefer consistency in an argument. How does this become black and white me? The black and white may be existent in the law sense only. Something is either legal or not. Sure, are there reasons that go against marijuana usage? Maybe. But none that we know of. Marijuana is illegal for very questionable reasons, (seriously read into), none of which are presented in a manner consistent with what we are as a country today.

Remember that part where you talked about how sarcasm doesnt come through a computer screen? I dont say bro because Im not douche tool.


Please don't attack someone for coming off as intelligent. Its a welcoming change in the realm of e-arguments.



Are you kidding me? Cigarettes are about personal freedom, which leads to a strong addiction and cancer, but a drug that does not cause any harm is not considered part of personal freedom? Very hypocritical stance.

Now you mentioned to me that you were addressing drugs as a whole, and I never commented on it. I am actually very mixed on the belief, and can't take a full opinion on it. I ideally think that drugs should be legal. But I don't want people using them and can't honestly say that I think someone should be able to purchase Heroin at a grocery store. This is honestly one of the great mysteries in life (as in how to handle this issue). But, I do have a proposal that I find to be significantly better than our current issue:

Decriminalize all Drugs. Stop jailing people for drugs. You see, decriminalization is not legalization. If something is legal, it would be the right of everyone to participate. If something is decriminalize, it is still not legal to participate in, but, the punishment would be lowered.

In this state of decriminalization, the enforcement should be towards helping out addicts, not jailing them. Focus the money on programs to treat these addicts, not punishing them. Drug addiction is a mental disorder. Someone who becomes addicted to a drug needs medical attention, that may actually lead to the person overcoming the problem. Enforcement should be pushed against the dealers.

It is a disease. A disease they brought on themselves (yes, Im aware of "addictive personalities" but dependency is largely not the case with that). How do we reward them? Treatment and care. Not that they would use it, theyll relapse. What consequences? You are rewarding them for being drug addicts. Great, as if we need more coddling in today's society. Let me guess, we should apply this to everything else. Commit a murder? Lets put the guy into counseling and instead of a cell, lets build dormitories and have mixers.

As I said though, it is a complicated freedom, and I still would like to see it legalized. Although it would kill me to see someone using heroin in front of me due to legalization, I don't feel the govt. should be able to say what one can do with their own body. Where the line can be drawn, who knows.

If addicts didnt impact peoples lives in so many facets and my tax dollars wouldn't pay for their self brought on need for treatment, fine. If they sat in a house and did drugs all day and didnt leave it, fine. It becomes my problem because in namby pamby land, it works out great. This, like too many things done by our government, will end in abuse and disaster.

Kudos. Too bad it won't be appreciated by the dissenting parties.

Im rolling my eyes.

Thanks! Being called a ****ing moron by a bigoted,stupid son of a b**** like you is a compliment or as Aristophanes put it back in the day: `To be insulted by you is to be garlanded with lilies`

You are about as credible as Alex Jones. Be quiet.

**** yes, I am a huge documentary buff, and I have not seen this one yet, will check it out at some point. Thank you, reps.

BTW, I think TexasTitan gave up on spewing random propaganda...Can't fight facts.

Nah, I just had stuff to do. Busy times.

Go spend some time around people who use drugs without any problems whatsoever. Focussing on one portion of the population of drug users/abusers and drawing conclusions from that and then calling others 'naive' is about as moronic as you can get without literally ramming your own head up your ass. And incidentally, you don't help nonviolent addicts by pricing their intoxicant at black market levels and then throwing them in prison with hardened criminals. So if your concern is the plight of those addicts, why don't you do them a favor and stop making every effort to make their lives even worse than they already are.

I have. And gotta be honest, the people who responsibly use them are a significant minority group compared to people who cant.

If they weren't charged black market prices for their drugs fewer of them would turn to crime to support their habit, meaning less robbery and/or burlgary for the same population of crack addicts. But don't let little things like logic and rationality get in the way of a good ignorant rant.



Might be able to afford an apartment if he wasn't being charged ridiculous prices for heroin.



Let him have his fix and he won't freak out.

Jesus Christ in the morning. Do you really believe making drugs super cheap and affordable will be a good idea? Youre right, theyd never resort to crime or even doing them in the first place when they can do more of it. Wed be scraping crack heads off the streets by the dozen.

Blah blah blah blah blah and more blah. The problems you point to are either caused or exercerbated by prohibition. Nor has there ever in the history of the planet been a successful prohibition.

Thats kinda funny, thats what I read your **** as.

This is the 'flood gate' argument and it is pure bull****. You are not 'introducing' these substances into our society, they are already here. Economics tells us that if prices go down there will certainly be an increase in users, but history also shows that demand for drugs is largely inelastic which means people aren't very responsive to price changes, which is why it takes drastic and draconian laws to affect drug use, and which also means the increase in users will be minimal, however the decrease in crime surrounding the manufacture, sale, distribution and use of drugs would be phenomenal.

You are increasing profile and availability. How is that not introducing? Yeah, great, the cartels would be put out of buisness. Then we would have to deal with the economic losses of the industry and deal with THAT fallout. This is not candy land.

I don't support using your tax dollars for such services.

They inevitably would be. This country will never have the balls or be apathetic enough to let people go without mandating help for them. This is painfully obvious.

Unlike tobacco, marijuana doesn't have to be smoked. It is smoked because that's the most efficient way to deliver the effects which means self dosing is easier and you get more for your money. If it didn't cost as much as it does, if it were legal, there would be standardization and quality control as exists in other industries which would make eating it more reliable and there would also be research into vaporizors because the active ingredients don't need to be combusted to get them into your lungs. Hence, no smoking, no cancer, just Doritos.

As yes, every single people carries a vaporizer around.

Your analysis of drug policy is sophmoric, idiotic and wrong. It implies that the government prohibition is effective which it isn't, and can be maintained which it can't. Every 'success' in squelching momentary supply raises the long term profit incentive for remaining and new suppliers to provide more. Every ratcheting up of the legal consequences means more nonviolent users are going to prison when they shouldn't and all the attendant costs of such, and means increasingly less ethical and violent people get involved in the production and sale of the substances. All the while the prohibition execerbates the very problems it's supposed to solve and then the worsening of conditions is used as an excuse by prohibitionists such as yourself for more of the same policies that either caused the conditions or made them worse.

Alcohol prohibition did not stop drinking and did not stop alcoholism. It lead to a very small decrease in overall alcohol consumption, shifted the ratio of users away from beer and wine and more toward harder liquor, and actually lead to an increase in alcoholism. Manufacturers were pushed out of legitimate society and as such were accountable to no one and started using increasingly questionable methods to speed up production and make products that harmed and literally killed users and left no legal recourse for survivors or family members or estates. Most notably, the violence surrounding the manufacture, distribution, sale, and even the use of alcohol rose in lockstep with the severity of the attempts to quash it until people finally got a ****ing clue and legalized it again.

In other words you are wrong. Facts show you are wrong. History shows you are wrong. And persistent belief in something that is blatantly false and self defeating like continuing drug prohibition shows you are 'naive' to put it politely. And the simple fact that all the problems you indentify are in fact happening and consistently getting worse under and during the policy of prohibition which you support hasn't clued you in to the fact that you might be off base on this issue, well it speaks volumes as to your mental capacity.

Alcohol is not the same as hard drugs. Completely different categories. It takes what, 5+ years to be an alcoholic? 1-2 uses of drugs?

:clap2:

Game. Set. Match.

Not really, again, I just respond to this when Im procrastinating from doing other stuff. Like hand finishing a knife that already has 6 hours into it and likely has 6 more to go.

 

[HereToStudy]

For that to be true, there needs to be a baseline of respect or caring. I have neither. I dont back up what I say because I understand the reality that nothing any of us do without the command of millions of dollars will ever matter as far as impacting change. I dont care enough to try to convince anyone here. Happy go lucky namby pamby land fantasies just piss me off.

See above.

This is a pretty cowardly way to go about the discussion. So I take it you have no respect for me, or any other member on this board who disagrees with you? It proves the thoughts of many here, but put into words makes you a worthless contribution to this forum, and any other community you belong to.

Oh man, they are a damn bible for this ****. We'll see what your dime bag costs when its done.

So your opinion, backed by 0 actual credibility and completely bias, is a good method of argument, but a completely independent research firm is a "damn bible for this ****." I hope you find a career that has nothing to do with debate or intellectual discussion.

Sourcing people who fit what you want to be said is great and all, but again, its just slanted speculation. My point is say you take an average pot dealer, I guarantee he knows people into harder **** that deal harder **** just by association based on the substances. The drug itself doesnt bridge that gap.

Please explain how this is "slanted." Although the website that spotlighted the study is anti-drug war, if you wrapped your mind beyond the tiny political corner you have trapped it into, you would realize that the study itself was conducted by CASA, a group that is anti-drug, in fact fighting drugs is the reason for their existence. I pity your ignorance.

On the second part of that argument, I ponder to myself which side of the argument are you on? So you realize that having people source a drug like marijuana from a dealer can lead to a dealer pushing harder drugs? So basically prohibition creates the gateway? I can't believe we are in agreement. Although I am sure you will accuse me of twisting your words.

Does soda impair your ability to drive? Does junk food impair your judgment? Gambling is banned in many places. Again, those things do not impact your mind in as significant a way as pot.

But they certainly lead to death through over consumption, something that marijuana in no way does. Again you seem ok with the legalization of alcohol that has a very strong, and at times stronger then marijuana, effect on the brain. It is proven to be one of the most detrimental things to society, and it kills the user over the long term. Consistency, give it a try.

I cant wait. It will remove the dregs of society from where I live. Make it readily available and cheap so they can subsist and smoke all day. Cant wait to see how this will impact welfare and government support.

Another piss-poor argument. In fact I will first point out that you use words that you apparently do not even know the meaning of. Subsist = Maintain or support oneself. In the way you used that it would be in no way support of your argument. Don't mind me correcting your english, it must be strange having a "dreg" of society, who smokes marijuana for recreation often, and has smoked through much of this discussion, correcting someone who has achieved such a high class level of society by not smoking pot.

You do realize the depth of californias budget gap right?

I can't believe the points you make to argue with. Nothing is a cure all for a government budget. Every single person in the US could send the government an extra 1000, equivalent to about 307Billion, and it wouldn't even be a crack at our National Debt. Does not mean it wouldn't be a step in the right direction as far as the government is concerned.

Remember that part where you talked about how sarcasm doesnt come through a computer screen? I dont say bro because Im not douche tool.

Sarcastic or not, you don't seem to be for the criminalization of cigarettes. On the second comment, stating earlier that you have no respect for people you are talking to and are ok with resorting to childish name calling, proves very much that you fit the role perfectly.

It is a disease. A disease they brought on themselves (yes, Im aware of "addictive personalities" but dependency is largely not the case with that). How do we reward them? Treatment and care. Not that they would use it, theyll relapse. What consequences? You are rewarding them for being drug addicts. Great, as if we need more coddling in today's society. Let me guess, we should apply this to everything else. Commit a murder? Lets put the guy into counseling and instead of a cell, lets build dormitories and have mixers.

Drop the murder non-sense. Don't shift outside of our argument to prove your point. If someone murders someone, high or sober, they deserve punishment. Rehab is not a reward. It is very taxing on the body and a very difficult and at times painful experience for people who go through it, However, it provides a chance at recovery. What does a cell bring a non-violent drug user? The ability to mingle with criminals, still have access to drugs (Numerous stories have come out of drug smuggling in prison, at times even by prison staff-feel free to call me out on it, ill post news articles), and grow a deeper resentment towards the government. They get let go, and go back to using. All the while, sucking dry our tax dollars. It is significantly more expensive to have someone in a jail cell for 5 years then a rehab facility for a couple months.

If addicts didnt impact peoples lives in so many facets and my tax dollars wouldn't pay for their self brought on need for treatment, fine. If they sat in a house and did drugs all day and didnt leave it, fine. It becomes my problem because in namby pamby land, it works out great. This, like too many things done by our government, will end in abuse and disaster.

I would like a re-explanation of what you mean in the last sentence. Again it seems we are in agreement. Prohibition, a product of our government, has lead to a booming underground market, fueled and funded by gunfire and bloodshed. Countries like Mexico are at a complete state of warfare over getting these drugs into our country, to meet the demand we have for them. The government created these problems. It is no different then alcohol prohibition, which certainly you are against, which was proven to be a complete disaster. Prohibition does not, and never will work. It doesn't stop the demand, it just places the supply in the wrong hand.

I have. And gotta be honest, the people who responsibly use them are a significant minority group compared to people who cant.

Again, not true. Over 40 percent of Americans have tried marijuana. [Invalid Link Removed], You are saying that over 40 percent of americans are irresponsible drug addicts....please....

As yes, every single people carries a vaporizer around.

Marijuana can be edible if prepared in foods. Do not underestimate the large market of edible marijuana that will be available post ban. Although smoking marijuana does not have nearly the amount of negative effects that tobacco does, those who are opposed to the act of smoking can easily purchase an edible form.

Also, again, as a dreg of society, I would like to point out that "every single people" makes my head hurt.



Please don't come back with anything but fact.

 

[CDB]

Im rolling my eyes.

You are about as credible as Alex Jones. Be quiet.

Nah, I just had stuff to do. Busy times.

Not really, again, I just respond to this when Im procrastinating from doing other stuff. Like hand finishing a knife that already has 6 hours into it and likely has 6 more to go.

Your inane response, and your apparent inability to properly use the quote function, indicate that you're either a troll or an ass. Either way, you're not worth any more of my time on this subject.