Ron Paul opposes the War on Drugs.
On November 20, 2008 Ron Paul said in a New York Times / Freakonomics interview:
“[...] the federal war on drugs has proven costly and ineffective, while creating terrible violent crime. But if you question policy, you are accused of being pro-drug. That is preposterous. As a physician, father, and grandfather, I abhor drugs. I just know that there is a better way — through local laws, communities, churches, and families — to combat the very serious problem of drug abuse than a massive federal-government bureaucracy.”
Note: This summary of Ron Paul’s position has been determined to be incomplete! Contact us to join RonPaul.com as a voluntary editor. Help us set the record straight and keep this page up-to-date.
First of all, whether or not a drug is a weed, a vegetable, natural, or synthetic, The government has NO Right to tell me what I can put into my body or mind. As long as I don’t pick up as axe and go on a crime spree, leave me alone – it’s MY business.
Like or Dislike:
4 
2
its a known a fact our economy is in one hell of a shit hole. we need to push harder for legalization of marijuana and we’d be out of a recession so fast you wont have time to finish the joint your smokin. GO RON PAUL 12052
Highly rated. What do you think?
10 
0
weed ain’t a drug, its a vegetable! no matter how you feel about “drug laws” i think a line should be drawn between something that grows from the earth and something produced in a laboratory. is it any coincidence that the further removed a “drug” is from its natural state, the more harmful it becomes to the user and society in general? opium to morphine to heroin to vicadin. shit, the only thing worse than a drug made in a lab is one made under your kitchen sink! smoke two joints and call me in the morning
Like or Dislike:
8 
1
“weed ain’t a drug, its a vegetable!”
Wow. Just… Wow. *shaking head*
Like or Dislike:
6 
6
Is it a vegetable if it contains vegetable protein?
At the very least, it is produce.
Like or Dislike:
4 
1
Can your common sense keep you from asking a question? (I guess that was already answered…)
So, the pointless question is duly ignored. Oh, great it is a produce. Not sure what that has to do with it being a vegetable, but thanks for the non sequitur.
Like or Dislike:
0 
5
Non sequitur? Thanks again for making it obvious that the English language is too difficult for you.
But it was a funny way to avoid answering another question.
Good Job
Like or Dislike:
3 
0
After watching Obama avoid answering even one question using a method similar to yours, I wonder if you studied under the master.
Like or Dislike:
2 
0
“Non sequitur? Thanks again for making it obvious that the English language is too difficult for you.”
AHAHAHHAHAHAHA. I am so sorry. I… Am watching you plumb new depths, somehow thinking it is snarky to accuse me of using a latin phrase because… English is “too tough’?!? AHHAHHAAHAHHHA, oh wait ‘plumb’ is actually a derivative of the greek term ‘plumbum’, I can’t use that one either.
You clearly must not be a lawyer, doctor, scientist, botanist, therapist, chemist, or really any sort of legal, medical, or science background.
What do you do when some asks if you would like a ‘burrito’ or if they refer to the coutry that shares our southern border as ‘Mexico’? Accuse them of not knowing English and then make fun of them?
Fantastic, ahahahhaha, just fantastic. Thanks for your acerbic and sinister lack of common sense, quite humorous. (oh wait, was that ‘English’ or more of that them thar ‘Latin’ I use as a crutch to compensate for my lack of english skills?)
Like or Dislike:
1 
4
Get a hold of yourself. Focus.
Now, point out the ‘non sequitur’.
The point of my response was that you should actually understand the meaning of the words that you choose. I understand if you had trouble grasping that concept.
Like or Dislike:
2 
0
Still looking? Nothing yet?
Maybe if you stare at the thread long enough a non sequitur will appear and save the day for you.
lmao
Like or Dislike:
3 
0
Gee I thought you guys said the Federal Reserve was the big Satan responsible for all economic woes, now it is marijuana?
Like or Dislike:
0 
2
More weed=more Phish fans and Ron Paul voters.
Just say NO to Phis and Ron Paul.
Like or Dislike:
0 
5
The “war on drugs” has a new dragon in their midst that has been avoided-prescription meds. Just now it seems there is some attention due to more celebrity deaths-Corey Haim,Anna Nichole Smith,Heath Ledger the list goes on. Of course at the scene of the death it is always said there was no sign of “illegal drugs” just alot of prescription bottles. Will this war be won or will Big Pharma win. Prescribed pain killers taken long term have the same effect as herion. When a doctor prescribes them does he explain to the patient the pills are just as dangerous and can be as deadly? Does the doctor design a plan to monitor the patient and wean the patient off the medication once the injury is healed? Just because they are legal does not change the outcome. I personally do not smoke pot, but I know afew that do. In my observation it is not what is portrayed to us by the media. These people work, pay taxes, are non voilent, take care of their families,are not reckless drivers and have no arrest records. I think the funds used to arrest and jail pot smokers would be much more wisely used to educate and treat those addicted to prescription medications, cocaine, crack and herion.
Like or Dislike:
4 
0
I completely agree with Ron Paul. I just finished a book about two American Muslims in Pakistan (in 1983, pre taliban) who were captured, tortured and then imprisoned in Pindi Prison (the most abhorrent place on Earth, no longer standing thankfully). His captors were Pakistani agents trained by the CIA for the “war on drugs.” Instead of going after the real criminals, the CIA-trained agents were instead setting up innocent foreigners to appear as though they were trafficking heroin. They turned a blind eye to the real traffickers because these were often well-to-do, wealthy and powerful Pakistanis. It was more than often the low-payed Pakistani police force who were making the real busts.
The two Americans are eventually released because of an incredible local lawyer and policeman who testified on their behalf. The corrupt agents never went to trial even though their fraud was exposed. This is where all those taxpayer funds to fight the war on drugs is going. Similar examples like the one above can be cited for Mexico and Peru as well.
Ron Paul is absolutely right when he says grassroots movements are the answer.
Furthermore, when money is shipped overseas it falls out of our control, and often is used to perpetuate the power of corrupt government officials and leaders who have no interest in putting an end to the profitable drug trade.
By the way, the book is called Khyber Knights by Cuchallaine O’reilly.
Like or Dislike:
7 
0
Prescription, OTC and non-prescription (street) drugs are harmful. There can be no argument. Spending billions of fiats to stem the manufacture, delivery and use of the illegal drugs is in itself a business! From FDA, DEA, ATF…et. al. These “wars” are a business like any other war. Drugs are still a huge problem after all the time, energy, lives and currencies have been spent… I ask you, who wins? The winners are the recipients to whom these funds are channeled. Our USD has been devalued so much secondary to printing so much of it to keep such programs in-tact… the so called “war on drugs” being a smaller part of the whole. I didn’t even elaborate on the corruption that takes place when LEO’s making $42,000 per annum can more than quadruple their income in a tax free environment. This illogical bickering will be the end of us all. Yes, parenting can never be replaced by laws, unless you like your child obtaining an attorney for being scolded. Dr. Paul, if he would be so gracious as to contact me, we would come to a wonderful solution for detecting operation of heavy equipment (driving under the influence) of other mind altering substances because this I believe to be a major “sticking point” especially for tetrahydrocannabinol influence secondary to its half life (t 1/2).
Like or Dislike:
0 
5
“Prescription, OTC and non-prescription (street) drugs are harmful. There can be no argument.”
What??
Like or Dislike:
4 
1
Thomas Paine
Oliver Cromwell
Ron Paul
A FEW GOOD MEN
Like or Dislike:
6 
0
Tom Pearl, the people who can change this is people like you and me who continue to support people like Ron Paul. People of reason, who hopefully will be able to change the puritan mind frame in congress. I believe this puritan mind frame stems from the “do it for the children” way of thinking. The, if we prohibit every negative substance that American society deems morally or physically detrimental then our children and society as a whole would be better off.
Susan Harkins, that is the prohibitionist mind set. However, in a free democratic society apparently one can have it both ways. One can say, well we tried to prohibit Alcohol and we were unsuccessful so, we’ll deal with the ramifications of adults potentially becoming unproductive, even dangerous to society alcoholics but, will be dammed if we’ll allow any other drugs accesseable to adults! Who in turn could or would allow this access to their children or, teach their children that this destructive behavior is ok if done in moderation.
We can go on with what is in fact detrimental to American society as a whole.
Even legal, acceptable venues like alcohol, fatty food, tobacco, reckless driving, unsafe sex, prescription drug use, firearms.
And this is where the hypocrisy, in a supposedly free American society lies.
I honestly believe, in a free society that espouses Liberty, you can’t have it both ways. As far as society being responsible for every idiot who allows these things to control or destroy their lives, we shouldn’t be responsible to fix them, or patch them up. I don’t believe that anyone who finds themselves in this predicament is entitled to have others pay for their addictions, whatever they me be. No one, at this point, can honestly say they were not informed as to the detriments of their abuse be it alcohol, drugs or food.
Like or Dislike:
5 
0
Suasponta, I agree. I am certain that I can raise my children quite well, in a world where 90% of regulation is stripped away. That would only require that I be a responsible parent (oh horrors) — and of course, the Government would just have to rely on my maternal instincts and hope that I do a good job. Imagine that! ;;;toasting Suasponta with a nice glass of burgundy;;; Here’s to your health.
Like or Dislike:
3 
0
I notice quite often in posts, this erroneous ‘leap of faith’ with drug control advocates. 1)Person states that drugs should be legalized –> 2)Conclusion: Person supports drug use.
Takes a small brain to go from 1 to 2 (above). That said…
I do not believe that drugs should be used; I do not do drugs; I do not associate with drug users (aside from a few smokers and occassional drinkers), and I think that drug addicts are a burden on any society. Now for the BUT…
But I do not believe that we need a vast amount of laws and resources to control drug use. This is identical to Prohibition Era tactics, which wasted a hell of a lot of money, locked a lot of people up, and got nothing done, except appease the anal retentive ‘Puritans’ and reassure them that government was making sure that the sky did not fall on them. End result, Prohibition ended, people got drunk for six months, and then they had their fill of it. When beer and whiskey were readily available, the temptation and desire for it fell off the cliff. Now we have just a few reasonable laws, which keep order around drinking. If you drink and drive, you go to jail because you are risking the lives of others.
The same thing will happen if you legalize drugs — demand will spike for about a year and then fall off a cliff. It is human nature for this to occur, as we have already seen it with Prohibition. For those, who claim that the sky is going to fall if drugs are legalized, I believe that they have a very narrow view of human behavior and the dynamics associated with changing environments. Want some proof? How about, I load your refridgerator up with solid blocks of chocolate; measure your consumption of it 2, 4, and 6 weeks into it. Same thing would happen with drug users. Its not rocket science. We do not need to waste billions of $ on this nonsense, only to appease a few anal retentives, and reassure them that the government will not allow the sky to fall on them. Abolish the ATF, for starters.
Like or Dislike:
6 
1
First things first. Can we all see the fallacy in terms like “supports drug use” and “demand for” drugs? A drug is simply defined as a chemical that has a psychological/physiological effect on a person. Someone who sips coffee is a Drug User, same as a suicidal roided-out wrestler.
We don’t see other personal choice issues defined this vaguely, so as to place the innocent and the ignominious under one label with a negative slant. If two 21-year old persons hug, then have sex, then hug again, then cook breakfast together, that is a Romantic Comedy. If one is 26 and the other 16, now we have a Rape and a Victim/Predator. Add/subtract five more years and we have Sicko/Looney Bin/Death Penalty. I choose this example partially because our sexual laws & customs are irrational & monstrous, but mostly to draw a simple comparison. Why not the same level of discernment in public speech about drug use? Why not qualify all drug use the way we qualify sex?
Except for a few Christian Scientists and other mystics, every man, woman & pubescent child in the USA uses drugs in a weekly, if not daily fashion, yet culturally we look down upon the “drug user” as defined arbitrarily (a user of one or more particular drugs) for monetary & racist reasons. The unspoken key: if the government/media SAY that a chemical is bad for you, it is a Drug. If they say it can be good for you, it’s Medicine. Or it’s beer and cigarettes.
Susan, if you hang out with nicotine smokers and alcohol drinkers, that means some of your friends are trapped by one of the most savagely addictive and insidiously deadly substances ever produced, and others of your friends are regularly using the deadliest and most destructive drug in U.S. history. A substance shouldn’t be labeled in a different way simply because it is legal or because a lot of people do it.
If we can all get past the artificial division the government creates between medicine, household pills/powders, soda/coffee and “drugs,” we will soon realize that drugs are already a part of everyone’s life and the false dilemma of “are drugs good or bad?” will sound as ridiculous as “Is a fire helpful?”
Like or Dislike:
2 
0
Now you’re talking. Big Pharma, the all pervasive, big pharma corporations, including the government’s interest in running drugs. We live in a harmful chemical sea… in our food (Monsanto), air (chemtrails & chemical pollutants), water (fluoride) and land (Monsanto), even in our clothing, furniture, housing materials, injected by vaccine, on and on. This is a topic worth raising until we remove these harmful chemicals from our lives. These chemicals are the root cause, the continuance and the development of many diseases and illnesses.
Since the govt is so big on healthcare, (ha! they’re interested in the profits from mandatory health insurance premiums, a totally different ballgame from actual healthcare services) you’d think they would do something about removing these chemicals. But Monsanto is tied in big with big govt. The govt and it’s partners in crimes against humanity.
Like or Dislike:
4 
0
Suasponta,
I agree that that being under the influence is no excuse for criminal activities. Also the folks that will have to vote this change in attitude in are not going to go along with a radical revision of the present policy. Remember the majority of voters want to take no responsibility for their actions. Similar to hiding behind a corporate structure. “It’s my job”, “It’s corporate policy not me. My hands are tied.” Just because its your job doesn’t make it right. By hiding behind these entities they “FEEL GOOD” about themselves. The same mentality as the gaurds at auchwitz. Those are the people that will have to vote this in. In order for that to happen it has to be made plpable for them. They must be able to convince themselves that they are benevolent and good while helping solve the drug problem in America. Then after a few years we get ther rest. Just as our government has done since the late 1960’s.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Yes Tom Pearl, an example of the criminal justice industrial complex. However, what disturbs me is the comment “They now treat the offender as an ill person with very strict medical supervision.”
Do we treat the person who smokes tobacco or drinks as an “ill person”? When did we as Americans stop taking responsibility for our own actions as adults? The last thing we need is a class of people who, but for no action but their own, choose to do something that might not be the most healthiest habit. And treat it as a diease by doctors!
Unfortunately, We live in a society were a person can win a multi-million dollar law suit against a tobacco company for providing them the means to slowly kill herself yet, shouldn’t this set a precedence to sue other corporations for the same? Like the alcohol and fast food industries.
At least Cannabis has some irrefutable medicinal attributes, as opposed to tobacco and alcohol.
The horror, the horror, the horror….
Like or Dislike:
2 
0
The Federal “UNITED STATES” has more people in her prisons than any other country in the world. That is not to say that many do not belong there, they do. There are many though, that have committed nonviolent drug crimes because they are addicted to these drugs. Mandatory minimums and amount calculation formulas used by law enforcement have placed the people in prison for longer terms than those that commit manslaughter. Federal judges are routinely impeached for granting downward departures. Prison wardens will ruin their carreers for allowing dying inmates to leave even a month early.
Five countries have decriminalized the use of cannibis. They now treat the offender as an ill person with very strict medical supervision. These countries have seen drug related crime diminish by 25% and their prison populations decrease by 50%.
Like or Dislike:
2 
0
http://www.ancientsuninc.com http://www.powerorganics.com-www.E3Live.com-if you take this stuff you wont need drugs.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0