Do you agree that Ron Paul is right on one thing? Stopping the War on drugs.?

Question

It had to be a maverick like him to say what most people know in their guts that the War On Drugs is not controlling drug traffick, or illegal profits funding gangs and terrorists all over the world. In Afghanistan drug moneys are killing our soldiers, we may even lose that war.

Answer 1

Yes because the 'war on drugs' is illegal. It doesn't matter whether you think drugs are good or bad for society, there just is no provision in the constitution to federally prohibit or regulate drugs. How did they prohibit alcohol back in the day? With a constitutional amendment! That is the way it has to be done; if the federal government wants to control something, they have to first amend the constitution to give them that power. Otherwise, according to the tenth amendment, everything else is left up to the state and the people.

Congress at least started its war on drugs in a sly fashion by imposing taxes on drugs but never actually allowing people to pay them. As it evolved into the DEA, it has become nothing short of a facist-like control. Now the federal legality of these substances can be determined on a whim by a group of unelected officials who depend on a never-ending war on drugs to keep them gainfully employed. That my friends is not even close to being a republic form of government.

Not to mention how big of a waste of money it is. We spend tens of billions of dollars every year on the war on drugs, and drug use has changed little since the prohibition movement. If anything, the problems have gotten worse. Our current approach is to throw addicts into jail for a period of time and let them out so they can get right back to their addictions. Personally, I see drugs as more of a health issue than a criminal issue; these people need to be put in rehab and educated, and not just thrown in jail. In countries like Holland where drugs are treated as such, there are far lower rates of drug abuse because people can openly seek help without the fear of prosecution.

Also, it should be understood that ending the war on drugs does not automatically make drugs legal, it leaves it up to the individual states to decide how drugs should be handled. If liberal states like California want to subsidize crack or if conservative states like Alabama want to shoot drug offenders in the street, that's up to them. The states have a lot better idea of what works for their inhabitants than the federal government does.

Answer 2

I agree that the War on Drugs is a waste of time and money. If it became regulated, I think drug intake would decrease, especially if we put an age limit on it like we do with alcohol and tobacco, tax it, and ensure that the public is educated about the consequences of use. I personally believe that people have the right to do whatever stupid, self-destructive thing they choose to do as long as it doesn't hurt anyone else and drugs falls into that category.

I highly doubt that Ron Paul could lift the ban on illegal drugs though. Congress would need to cooperate with him on that and I don't see them budging on this issue.

Answer 3

I will just say this, if the big names behind dealer are ever reveal we all will be shocked. If it the big guys in Government
are behind some of this ,why would they care if our soldiers are getting kill?, As long as they are making the money. This is a dog eat dog world. people care only about their fat pockets.
And man wise, only we the people can stop it, by knowing who we are sending to Washington. But no,I have not found too much of anything to agree with Paul on.

Answer 4

>>>we may even lose that war. (Afghanistan)<<<

What did we have to win there?

Osama bin Laden is NOT wanted for 9/11.

If we really wanted to find him, I'm sure a few people at the Carlyle shareholder's meeting had his address.

But he's been dead since December 2001.

So why are we still there?

Why were we there in the first place?

Answer 5

That's the Libertarian Party view. If you legalize drugs, you run a lot of the bad guys out of business. You would also have oversight of production so drugs wouldn't be cut with more dangerous/poisonous chemicals. And you could tax them just as we do with cigarettes. Those taxes could be used to fund treatment centers for people when they decide it wasn't such a good idea to use drugs.

In addition, the jails wouldn't be overcrowded.

It's actually a pretty good solution.

Answer 6

I like Ron Paul, but all these wars he wants to end, well, he needs to reconsider. While the war on drugs won't stop them, it does lower them and force them underground. Without a vigilant effort to pursue these drug traffickers, the practice would become more widespread and you can't convince me that widespread drug use, or increased drug use is a good thing. Drugs are bad for you, that won't stop people from using them, but it's important to know what they can do to you.

Answer 7

I will agree that the war on drugs is a failure if you and Ron Paul will agree that the war on poverty has been an equal failure and disaster.
Let's do away with both. Billions upon billions spent with no good result. We still have addicts and we still have poor.
If Ron Paul wants to be honest, truthful and consistent, he should agree that both these programs with all their many government programs should be done away with.
Agree?

Answer 8

Ron Paul has the most interesting ideas on the campaign trail, which is easy considering none of the front runners are coming up with any good ideas.

Answer 9

Dr. Paul is right about a lot of things.

Answer 10

He may have a point. However, If there is a demand, there will always be a supply. In the USA, people just make their own.