End the War on Drugs [Ron Paul]

U.S. Rep. Ron Paul, R-Tex., 14th District ^ | 2009-03-30

[rabscuttle385]

We have recently heard many shocking stories of brutal killings and ruthless violence related to drug cartels warring with Mexican and US officials. It is approaching the fever pitch of a full blown crisis. Unfortunately, the administration is not likely to waste this opportunity to further expand government. Hopefully, we can take a deep breath and look at history for the optimal way to deal with this dangerous situation, which is not unprecedented.

Alcohol prohibition in the 1920’s brought similar violence, gangs, lawlessness, corruption and brutality. The reason for the violence was not that making and selling alcohol was inherently dangerous. The violence came about because of the creation of a brutal black market which also drove profits through the roof. These profits enabled criminals like Al Capone to become incredibly wealthy, and militantly defensive of that wealth. Al Capone saw the repeal of Prohibition as a great threat, and indeed smuggling operations and gangland violence fell apart after repeal. Today, picking up a bottle of wine for dinner is a relatively benign transaction, and beer trucks travel openly and peacefully along their distribution routes.

Similarly today, the best way to fight violent drug cartels would be to pull the rug out from under their profits by bringing these transactions out into the sunlight. People who, unwisely, buy drugs would hardly opt for the back alley criminal dealer as a source, if a coffeehouse-style dispensary was an option. Moreover, a law-abiding dispensary is likely to check ID’s and refuse sale to minors, as bars and ABC stores tend to do very diligently. Think of all the time and resources law enforcement could save if they could instead focus on violent crimes, instead of this impossible nanny-state mandate of saving people from themselves!

If these reasons don’t convince the drug warriors, I would urge them to go back to the Constitution and consider where there is any authority to prohibit private personal choices like this. All of our freedoms – the freedom of religion and assembly, the freedom of speech, the right to bear arms, the right to be free from unnecessary government searches and seizures – stem from the precept that you own yourself and are responsible for your own choices. Prohibition laws negate self-ownership and are an absolute affront to the principles of freedom. I disagree vehemently with the recreational use of drugs, but at the same time, if people are only free to make good decisions, they are not truly free. In any case, states should decide for themselves how to handle these issues and the federal government should respect their choices.

My great concern is that instead of dealing deliberatively with the actual problems, Congress will be pressed again to act quickly without much thought or debate. I can’t think of a single problem we haven’t made worse that way. The panic generated by the looming crisis in Mexico should not be redirected into curtailing more rights, especially our second amendment rights, as seems to be in the works. Certainly, more gun laws in response to this violence will only serve to disarm lawful citizens. This is something to watch out for and stand up against. We have escalated the drug war enough to see it only escalates the violence and profits associated with drugs. It is time to try freedom instead.

[mommya]

I’m hoping that most people really don’t know about Ron Paul’s Tea Parties - cuz if they all know and just are just ignoring it like they are the ones to come up with it - well that’s just wacky. That’s like AlGore inventing the internet wacky to me.

I would hope that when they realize folks were standing up for these ideals before them - not 200+ years ago but just last year - they will at least ackowledge and thank Ron Paul’s supporters.

A gal can dream can’t she?

ETA - I know Paul supporters did not invent the tea party idea either - but they have recently used it with much success.

[GLDNGUN]

Desoxyn is not prepared to be smoked. And?

And? Smoking is highly preferred by addicts over any pill form. It gives them an intense, near instant rush. Popping a Desoxyn pill does not, although they can catch a buzz after about 20 minutes.

How familiar you are with the expressions. Social worker?

No, I'm not a social worker, but "tweeker" is a fairly common term for a meth head.

All one has to do to make Desoxyn "SMOKABLE" is to obtain some acetone or denatured alcohol and follow the handy directions from the USDOJ site I linked above. Keep in mind...The purity of the finished product varies depending on the amount of washing and the laboratory operator's level of experience.

Huh? First you say "all one has to do" as if it is easy as pie...then you say the purity depends on the amount of "washing" and "operator's level of experience". Sounds like it might not be quite that easy after all.

My question still stands. Should Ron Paul's drug dispensaries provide "washed", "smoke-ready" meth. Yes or no? It's really not that hard of a question. If not, WHY NOT?

[MaxMax]

You wouldn’t help him fight for capitalism?

Oh wow, you said Capitalism! Oh what was I thinking, how could I possibly say no.

[philman_36]

Tobacco and alcohol consumption have never been illegal. Their "addiction" rates are extremely high in comparison.
I see that you're trying to compare the physical addiction of tobacco and alcohol to the psychological addiction of marijuana.
BIG difference...even HUGE!

[CzarChasm]

<rant>
The level of ignorance and knee-jerk idiocy in these threads is pathetic.

I am ashamed of the current crop of FReepers; surely you can harvest better pro-prohibition arguments than these lame analogies and limp-wristed anecdotes? Where are your facts? Where are the blistering retorts showing the logic errors and historical precedents that support your pro-prohibition positions?

Could it be that there aren't any?

The prohibition of alcohol required a Constitutional Amendment - because back then, we still respected the Constitution. This, alone, for a Constitution-loving American, should be reason enough to end this madness.

But if it's not, note that alcohol consumption went up during Prohibition, especially the consumption of "hard liquour" (since "the hard stuff" was more cost-effective to smuggle). By the time this misguided experiment (see below) was repealed, the damage was already done - organized crime was here to stay, they simply changed products and kept right on going.

Why was Prohibition a misguided experiment? Because laws do not make people moral. Criminalizing what was once a legal and free personal choice simply created a very large class of new criminals - and made supplying their wants much more profitable. Unfortunately it also made it much more violent, drastically increased police and political corruption, etc. - because that's what prohibitions do; or at least, that's what every prohibition in history has done.

No wonder these threads end up in the Smoky Back Room - there's very little intelligent discourse in them.

So let me save the pro-prohibitionists some time by addressing the expected and obvious non-sequitor retorts in advance:

• malum prohibitum is not equivalent to malum in se, so don't even waste pixels trying to go there. Killing a hooker in an alley is not the same as smoking a joint in your home, don't be stupid.
• escalation of substances reduces the market, not expands it; yes, smuggling will continue, but cannabis is by far the vast majority of the market and arguably the least harmful psycho-active substance known to mankind
• the Dutch experiment was wildly successful; their drug-related crime rates plummeted, and people voluntarily seeking help increased dramatically. The vast majority of hard-core "pot smokers" gave it up on their own by age 30 while continuing to lead otherwise productive lives [would that hard-core alcoholics could do the same!]
• NO ONE ADVOCATES GIVING DRUGS TO MINORS, that's a really stupid strawman

</rant>

[philman_36]

And? Smoking is highly preferred by addicts over any pill form. It gives them an intense, near instant rush.
SO WHAT!
Popping a Desoxyn pill does not, although they can catch a buzz after about 20 minutes.
As if someone couldn't crush up their pills and make it stronger! A real DOH! moment you've got going there.

First you say "all one has to do" as if it is easy as pie...then you say the purity depends on the amount of "washing" and "operator's level of experience".
It is easy and I didn't say anything about the purity, the USDOJ said that. You obviously didn't read my link.
Sounds like it might not be quite that easy after all.
Tsk, tsk...still so ignorant...http://www.methaddictiontreatment.com/page2.htm
Methamphetamine Recipe
Methamphetamine’s recipe is simple and straightforward, and easy to find on the internet. Its ingredients are cheap and can be found with minimal effort. Because the methamphetamine recipe is fairly simple and straightforward, methamphetamine is cheap and easy to acquire. Ingredients in the recipe include cold medication, aceton, iodine tincture, and hydrogen peroxide.

Should Ron Paul's drug dispensaries provide "washed", "smoke-ready" meth. Yes or no?
Well write Dr. Paul and ask him! How am I supposed to answer for someone else? I'm no mind reader. (and your question is just posturing anyway and you'll never ask him)
It's really not that hard of a question. If not, WHY NOT?
Ibid

[GLDNGUN]

My, my, look at all of those "legal" drugs!

I'm sure there's a point there somewhere.

[philman_36]

I'm sure there's a point there somewhere.
Yep, and apparently you missed it.

[GLDNGUN]

I see that you're trying to compare the physical addiction of tobacco and alcohol to the psychological addiction of marijuana. BIG difference...even HUGE!

I am? Actually I was responding to question about coke and heroin.

[philman_36]

The level of ignorance and knee-jerk idiocy in these threads is pathetic.
Have you checked out the Keywords below the article?

Where are your facts?
You're making me laugh!

No wonder these threads end up in the Smoky Back Room - there's very little intelligent discourse in them.
Crying to the Moderators helps a lot too.

[philman_36]

Actually I was responding to question about coke and heroin.
It doesn't matter. As long as you can muddy the waters and try to make the comparison that marijuana is as bad as the rest...you've won your Pyrrhic victory.

[budwiesest]

Drugs are in every facet of America's life....all the way to & up the VP’s daughters nose.

Good point. I've thought that had the WOsD actually eliminated one drug, it might be seen as a partial success- but it hasn't- it's only made them all more expensive.

And that has meant billions in profits to the sellers who don't care one whit about our society or our freedoms. They couldn't care how many addicts they create or whether we institute gun bans to curb the violence associated with their trade.

The smart drug producer would take the long view and work toward legalization with himself as a major provider, since what exists today is simply unsustainable.

[Trailerpark Badass]

Popping a Desoxyn pill does not, although they can catch a buzz after about 20 minutes.

Or they can chop it into lines with a razor blade and snort it.

[budwiesest]

Win the war on drugs, implement the death penalty for drug users.

You might want to close the door on your truck as you make deliveries- the exhaust fumes are shrinking your brain.

[death2tyrants]

I'm arguing that a hundred years of drug prohibition cannot be shown to have lowered addiction rates in the US.

This is false. According to the DOJ, Overall drug use in the United States is down by more than a third since the late 1970s. That’s 9.5 million people fewer using illegal drugs. We’ve reduced cocaine use by an astounding 70% during the last 15 years. That’s 4.1 million fewer people using cocaine.

[death2tyrants]

A bizarre argument

It's a pathetic straw man argument by you.

[GLDNGUN]

But if it's not, note that alcohol consumption went up during Prohibition

Note that consumption was NOT "prohibited" during Prohibition, making "Prohibition" a misnomer. Also note that consumption WENT THROUGH THE ROOF after "Prohibition" ended.

the Dutch experiment was wildly successful

110% FALSE.

http://www.christian.org.uk/news/20081211/organised-crime-forces-amsterdam-to-clean-up/

Organised crime forces Amsterdam to clean up

Authorities in Amsterdam will close down half the city’s brothels and cannabis cafes because they are attracting organised crime.

The Netherlands legalised prostitution eight years ago and has long tolerated the possession of small amounts of cannabis, which is often sold in ‘coffee shops’.

But after deciding last year that the country’s capital Amsterdam needed cleaning up, the city’s leaders this week unveiled plans to close half its brothels and coffee shops.

They admitted the “sex and drugs” culture had got out of hand, with an official document stating: “There is crime and an infrastructure that is maintained and fed by a host of criminogenic facilities.”

“Money laundering, extortion and human trafficking are things you do not see on the surface but they are hurting people and the city. We want to fight this,” said Amsterdam’s deputy mayor Lodewijk Asscher.

Mr Asscher hopes the clampdown will make the area seem less seedy and tourists will no longer be “embarrassed” to say they have been there.

Health officials estimate that Amsterdam has more than 7,000 addicts. These addicts are responsible for 80% of all property crime in the city, which forced Amsterdam to maintain a police presence far greater than those of cities of comparable size in the United States. Oh, well, so much for getting rid of the WOD means getting rid of the "police state".
The Dutch have not raised ANY tax revenue from drug sales, and drug violators account for 50% of the Dutch prison population. The Netherlands is the most crime-prone nation in Europe and most drug addicts live on state welfare payments and by committing crimes. Faced with public disgust over soaring drug-related crime, they are now re-thinking their liberal drug laws. Eberhard van der Laan, leader Of the Social Democrats in the Amsterdam City Council says, "People are absolutely fed up with all the troubles caused by drug addicts - car windows broken, noise, whole streets almost given up to the drug problem." The number of Amsterdam drug cafes rose from 30 to over 300 in one decade during this experiment.

This "experiment" didn't work? Shocking, I tell you, shocking!

NO ONE ADVOCATES GIVING DRUGS TO MINORS, that's a really stupid strawman.

Yes, there IS a group that advocates giving drugs to minors! DRUG DEALERS. How do you plan on stopping them? Remember, NO WAR ON DRUGS!

[GLDNGUN]

Or they can chop it into lines with a razor blade and snort it.

Yes, they can. Yet, "ice" is far more "popular" than powdered form even thought it is much more expensive. I guess Ron Paul's drug shops will have to provide meth pills, meth powder, meth ice, and meth freebase (liquid).

[death2tyrants]

Now you need to present a counter-argument to yourself.

[GLDNGUN]

It doesn't matter. As long as you can muddy the waters and try to make the comparison that marijuana is as bad as the rest...you've won your Pyrrhic victory.

Huh? Again, I was responding to a specific question. I'm sorry if I left out your favorite drug.