Ron Paul: End the War on Drugs!





In his latest column Ron Paul points out that the War on Drugs is unconstitutional, can’t be won, and only makes things worse for almost everyone involved. The only beneficiaries are the drug barons, smugglers and dealers who enjoy exorbitant profits, and those dark forces in government who try to further suppress our freedoms under the excuse of fighting the war against drugs.

Download the column as an MP3 file here (3:30 minutes).

End the War on Drugs

by Ron Paul

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 1920s 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 IDs 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.

»crosslinked«

Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

49 Comments:

  1. Pingback: I’ve Been a Changin’, As You Can Plainly See | No Grasp of Your Reality

  2. Awesome issues here. I am very satisfied to see your article.
    Thank you so much and I'm having a look ahead to contact you.
    Will you kindly drop me a mail?

    Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  3. Anyone with a brain can figure this out on their own. When it is illegal or “decriminalized”, criminals will still be involved because it has massive value. Once everything is legal, the value drops dramatically, which means everyone can grow it in their backyards if they so choose. Wakeup people, these things will be used whether they are illegal or not. So why waste money putting people in jail over things they will use anyways.

    Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0

  4. Pingback: Obama and Romney Abysmal on Civil Liberties | LittleMargaretNan

  5. My brother recommended I may like this website. He was once totally right. This publish truly made my day. You cann't believe simply how so much time I had spent for this info! Thanks!

    Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 1

  6. Legalization will allow ANYONE to grow their own, which means there will be NO criminals selling it. Anyone with a brain can figure this out on their own. When it is illegal or "decriminalized", criminals will still be involved because it has massive value. Once everything is legal, the value drops dramatically, which means everyone can grow it in their backyards if they so choose. Wakeup people, these things will be used whether they are illegal or not. So why waste money putting people in jail over things they will use anyways. So dumb.

    Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 2

    • Not really... If they legalized it... they would make you get a permit to grow the plant like they do with everything else. For example distilling alcohol. If they tax the growers they can gain revanue on the plant

      Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

      Like or Dislike: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 3

  7. Pingback: Ron Paul receives enthusiastic support during speech at USM | Dr. Ron Paul - Presidential Candidate 2012

  8. Pingback: Ron Paul makes campaign stop st USM | The Free Press

  9. Pingback: Why I Support Ron Paul | John Gardner

  10. Pingback: A Debate for the Ages, Part I: Nixon and Drug Abuse – “Root Causes” or “Personal Culpability”? | Points: The Blog of the Alcohol and Drugs History Society

  11. Pingback: Is Ron Paul A Real Conservative? | SNS Post

  12. Pingback: Kelleigh Nelson — The Phony Rightwing: Ron Paul « What were they thinking?

  13. Pingback: Bachmann Stands by Bribery Charge Against Paul Amid Iowa Caucus Campaign | Michele Bachmann

  14. Pingback: Ron Paul

  15. Pingback: Romney Intensifying Effort in Iowa as He Seeks Republican Caucus Victory | My Blog

  16. Pingback: Is Ron Paul a Real Conservative? | All Things Political Today

  17. I know it's not really PC to follow my own post but just snapped to a more conscise though dated label for my complaint. And no pun intended. But I think it's a "cop-out" (see 1970s) to say you want to head the federal government and make this huge correction, but rather than correct it, create 50 new problems for the same electorate and act like something good has happened.

    Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 1

  18. First, I don't think most drug offenders are taken on federal charges, as many more seem to fill the state prisons than the federal ones, but I am no expert for sure. And, honestly, my concern here was not about trying to out Dr Paul on his drug agenda, but to point out that I felt there was something missing between what he intended for the casual reader to think and what I believe he would easily recognize to be a sort of doublespeak (see George Orwell's "1984" if unclear). I also recognize that this was written some years ago before his every move was being filtered by legions of spin doctors and survey-sorters along with the rest of the electioneers. Again, I am not trying to degrade the candidate in any way. Nor am I a blogger, or even an avid political anything. More of a lurker who's just gently pointing to a tiny wrinkle in a mostly-seamless, well-considered and highly supportable stand that Dr. Paul is skillfully weaving into the fabric of the upcoming election.

    (But if they don't have to spend all that money on interdiction, wouldn't that just make it easier to continue to fund keeping citizens in prison at a percentage higher than the world has EVER known?IDK.)

    Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  19. Am I the only one who sees the sleight of hand here? "In any case, states should decide for themselves how to handle these issues and the federal government should respect their choices." This is an old trick. Let the states take control until there is such a widespread abuse of power that the Feds must step back in.

    How many here think your state would be significantly more open-minded about drug war issues than the Feds currently are? I can hardly imagine any significant changes occurring, and least of all for the better. Our prisons would continue to be filled to capacity, and our police would continue to have plenty of Probable Cause options to fill them with.

    I support many of Ron Paul's positions and am grateful most of all for his taking the initiative on virtually every substantive topic being debated in this election season. I still haven't decided which candidate is the least likely to finish Us off (and thus get my vote) but his article has made me considerably more skeptical of his intent and I will be reading between the lines with significantly more care in the future.

    Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 1

  20. Pingback: Let’s declare victory in the war on street drugs. | danmillerinpanama

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *


× five = 45

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <s> <strike> <strong>