Ron Paul: Why Can’t We ‘Put Into Our Body Whatever We Want?’

VANCOUVER, Wash. (AP) — Republican presidential candidate Ron Paul decried the “war on drugs” Thursday night, telling supporters in Washington state that people should be able to make their own decisions on such matters.

Voters in Washington are likely to decide this year whether to legalize the recreational use of marijuana

“If we are allowed to deal with our eternity and all that we believe in spiritually, and if we’re allowed to read any book that we want under freedom of speech, why is it we can’t put into our body whatever we want?” Paul told more than 1,000 people at a rally in Vancouver, a suburb of Portland, Ore.

Paul did not mention his rivals for the Republican nomination but criticized President Barack Obama for killing American citizens with suspected terrorist ties and for expanding federal regulations.

The Texas congressman said he wasn’t sure if he’d win the GOP nomination and tries not to predict the future but added that he’s encouraged by the enthusiasm of his supporters.

“People who are strong believers in issues and ideas and principals, they do lead the way,” he said.

Paul is the second Republican to hold a major public event in Washington. Former Pennsylvania Sen. Rick Santorum was in Olympia and Tacoma on Monday. Washington’s caucuses are scheduled for March 3.

Some in the Vancouver audience came from neighboring Oregon, which has a primary set for May 15.

Paul was spending Thursday campaigning in Idaho and Washington and has rallies planned Friday in Richland and Spokane. He is expected to hit most of Washington’s media markets before the state’s nonbinding caucuses.

(© Copyright 2012 The Associated Press. All Rights Reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.)

  • Ron Paul: Why Can’t We ‘Put Into Our Body Whatever We Want?’ – CBS Local | Amazing News

    […] CBS Local […]

  • Ridahoan

    But should companies be allowed to sell, advertise, and essentially push anything ‘we’ want? Should someone make a profit by selling meth to my neighbor?

    • manapp99

      Yes…they should. How about the girl that was living on nothing but McDonalds nuggets? Should the law ban chicken nuggets because an individual took it to excess? How much do you want the government telling you what to do?

      • Karizmata

        Now they are discussing regulating more than the transfatty foods, they are going after refined white sugar. It may become illegal.

        The alcohol and cigarettes available make a pretty good case for self control over legal harmful habit forming substances. WHY ARE THEY LEGAL AND MARIJUANA / COCAINE / HEROIN ISN’T?


    • Nicholas

      yes they should.

      the real question you are asking is “should we be allowed to use force against them for doing so” ….absolutely not!
      unless we become the philanthropic despotist that resorts to violence as a means to resolve conflicting moralities, it’s a cognitive dissonace the “moral dictator”

    • Johnathan

      They do. They are called Pharmaceutical companies. Count the number of deaths each year from prescription drugs.

    • Rakes

      No one would ever attempt to create a company that kills off its customers so quickly. You would go bankrupt and face possible criminal charges for endangering the public in the same quarter that you opened.

      • Ridahoan

        You wouldn’t face any charges in a libertarian world would you? How could you be held responsible for other people’s choices? And… meth doesn’t kill all that quickly to rack up a good profit. See many other posts re: profit made by drug lords and gangs.

    • Rakes

      They already do sell products that people use to get an altered state of mind: computer duster, bath soaps, glue, spray paint, “incense” (designer pot), alcohol, tobacco, and whip-its. Meth would kill off most of their customers too quickly to be profitable anyways.

    • SirSpeaksTheTruth

      Someone is making a profit RIGHT NOW if your neighbor is in fact using meth.

    • Laxon Laxoff

      If your neighbor wants to do meth and he/she has that mentality with the knowledge of what meth can do to an addict, then he/she will do it whether or not its legal.

      Soon the day will come when someone questions your choice of church, school, eating habits and alcohol consumption.

      The issue is more the right to choose than what we’re choosing.

      • Ridahoan

        Well that sounds good until somebody chooses something that negatively impacts you in a direct fashion.

        I’d say that it is true meth heads will do meth regardless after they are hooked. but I think if it is legal, more people will do it. I am fine with legalizing pot on the other hand because it is not addictive nor remotely as destructive. I actually think pot can be a gateway drug simply because it is illegal — makes teens lose even more respect for the law, and in some cases mixed with the wrong crowd: sometimes the dealer is not just a guy with a lot of grass in his hand.

        People question these things about each other all the time. Well, yep, you can buck socialization if you have the spine. I don’t think that’s what the methheads are doing.

    • Ridahoan

      Ask not for whom the bell tolls,
      It tolls for thee.

    • JP

      Somebody probably already does if they want it legal or not they are going to get it so why waste our money on pretending to try and stop it.

    • Jason

      what about cigarettes?

      • Josie

        According to the “really smart” people of the world, cigarettes are the bane of human existence. There is nothing worse. I don’t agree. There is far worse. But for some reason, cigarettes are put into the corner and shunned. The world is so nuts.

    • Robbzilla

      If your neighbor is dumb enough to buy it, yes. Treating him/her as someone who’s sick has been proven to be more effective than treating him/her as a criminal. Also, would you rather a corporation make a small profit, or a drug lord make a huge one off of that sale? While you might have reservations about the morality of the larger corps, I’ll take them over a drug lord any day of the week.

      • Ridahoan

        Yeah I kind of agree (it was actually a question, believe it or not), especially about criminalization. But it’s a difficult point, because I’m afraid the corporation would be far more effective at pushing than the drug lord, especially if the corporation existed in a libertarian world in which they had free rein to advertise in the most efficient manner.

    • Monty

      You mean “push” drugs like they “push” cigarettes and alcohol? Yeah, they should have that freedom. And you have the freedom to not purchase or use that product. Go figure! Also, if your neighbor is foolish enough to purchase meth, and someone is able to produce it for them in a cost effective manner, the answer is yes.

      • Ridahoan

        And if my neighbor’s house burns down because they forgot about the pot of ramen, and burns down my house, will you pay for it?

    • Jessica

      Ron Paul is proposing ending the federal “War On Drugs” because responsibility for such enforcement is not delegated to the federal government in the U.S. Constitution. That responsibility rightly belongs to the individual states, and each state will be able to decide which substances to forbid or permit as they see fit. There isn’t going to be a free-for-all.

      • Evan Reyes

        I agree with Jessica, but “I can’t stand the “legalize drugs” crowd because they claim that drug use doesn’t adversely affect society, all while ignoring the affects alcohol has had.” You should read the below article, the problem isn’t the drugs, it’s everybody else.

        For those who say Drug use is detrimental to society. Get some perspective, if it’s a choice it’s not a problem.

      • doc

        You are absolutely correct. They needed to amend the Constitution to prohibit alcohol, the Feds should have to seek a Constitutional amendment for each drug they wish to prohibit. And yes, it is totally a State by State Issue.

      • mirted

        Well, that would be an improvement. Of course, drug users would flock to the states with the programs that fafor them most and the people who pay taxes in those states will enjoy the costs. But, it might result in better programs than what we have now.

        However, I don’t hear him putting a focus on the issue as State’s rights..he puts more of a Libertarian/individual freedom issue.

        Of course, no where in this do we hear much about responsibility. Abusive drug use and responsibility are at opposite ends of the spectrum.

      • kauboy

        Now this… this is a real and legitimate argument.

        I can’t stand the “legalize drugs” crowd because they claim that drug use doesn’t adversely affect society, all while ignoring the affects alcohol has had.

        But, making this a state’s rights issue is certainly something I can agree with.
        This is not, and never should have been, a federal issue.
        The constitution does not grant any power to the federal government over any area that can be construed to encompass non-pharmaceutical drug use of any kind.
        (Yes, I believe the government should regulate pharmaceuticals to maintain minimal safety standards. But the current over-regulation hinders advancement.)

        Get back to following the constitution, and leave this matter to the states.

      • AboveAverageJoe

        Listen, one last comment…

        If you were to go to ANY PRISON in the country you can get every drug available on the street and that is a totally controlled environment. The point is, you could turn this place into a high security prison complete with government shakedowns of your houses and their will still be people licking toads and picking fungus off the fecal matter of animals to achieve altered states.

        You ignorant arrogant rednecks need to start trying something that has been legal for years… THINKING FOR YOURSELVES!

      • Mike B

        We legalize alcohol, tobacco and look at the health costs that taxpayers have to cover. Other idiots want to use other drugs that likely have even greater medical repercussions and who pays?
        Why should the public be responsible for the 20year black lung smoker?
        Why should the public be responsible for the 600lbs porker living off of BBQ Pork rinds and 2 liter Mountain dews?
        Why should hte public be responsible for the drug user who has health, mental and physical, problems stemming from use of legal pot, heroin, cocaine, meth, and any other you kooks want to legalize.
        Oh wait, it should be a State’s right issue, but healthcare is federal (Obamacare). Think about the ramifications for just one second please!!

    • Troy C

      Now you are comparing apples to meth. Bad argument. Of course meth, crack and others are in a completely different category. I know countless pot users that own businesses and are productive members of society that pay their taxes and live right. Sentences for having pot are sometimes much greater than raping someone or even murdering someone. Prisons are big business for private owners. The system is about money and legalizing pot would place thousands of good people back into society. The taxes collected would greatly help our failing economy.

      • Ridahoan

        No, I meant meth, not pot. I agree that pot should be legalized. But the dogmatic position seems to be that adults should be able to put ‘anything’ into their bodies. I would like that freedom, but I don’t think everyone can handle it, especially once they have slipped down the slope of addiction.

    • stloony

      I don’t think someone would sell it for free.

      • latinos_for_ron_pablo

        >> Note to Neo-Cons including the Laureate : your empire is ending in Afghan where most do. The largess and egesta are over.

        Genocide and secularizing masquerading as patriotism; ditto for the Fatherland. The welfare/warfare state is with you; the workers aren’t.

        True conservatism isn’t congruous with big-gummint; and Crony Capitalism that socializes debt – isn’t entrepreneurship.

        Chickenhawks all in a loud, empty suit worn by a furtive, Runyonesque character.

        But of course Neo-Cons, and Neo-Liberals like BHO and the Trailer-trash Twins only suckle for absolute, Communistic power.

        They have a problem. That 800-lb gorilla and elephant in the room isn’t da wife’s “back door man”, that’s the next President.

        A world statesman and America’s only statesman in a century of Progressive wh0res and psychopaths; his positions simply are based on truth. Only the healthcare tragedy is complicated – I think myriad subsidies should be unified under a single healthcare plan during the 5-yr interim it would take to return to a free market. However this is better than Neo-Cons and Neo-Liberals not understanding their own speechwriters’ talking points. Think “pro-Life” debaucherer, Bush the Younger – with earpiece – aborting fratboy love-child(ren) and blocking 5,6 state, anti-abortion measures : while murdering the sons of the politically non-connected, and anarcho-followers of the world’s three, great religions (all Semitic in origin) — some for their oil, all for their industry :
        Shrub and Bolton playing musical chairs with National Guards, doctor-son Cheney on 5 yrs bed rest – Sambo deferred for “close and personal” punjis and point.

        Obviously they only give lip-service to Statesman Paul’s traditional Republican and true Conservative agenda of liberty and prosperity through Free-Market Capitalism [NOT imperial protectionism viz isolationism]; because they’ll never be more than Communist demagogues.

      • Ridahoan

        Read the comment below and you may find otherwise.

    • cartlon

      Now you want to prohibit advertising, marketing, and selling? The only “rights” the government has are few – and the rights of the people are vast – unless you want to start imprisoning people for “unapproved” speech.

      “Should” can be handled through local action, boycotts, media attention, etc. – but I suspect your “should” refers to whether it’s “legal”.

      Humira causes cancer and fatal lung infections, yet it’s marketed by showing lovely people playing on the beach — lots of people don’t use it to treat RA, because they’ve done their own research. Why is any other product, including Sham-Wow, going to be treated differently?

    • thrakazog

      Yes. Nobody is going to sell your neighbor meth for a loss.

    • Kaptain Kanada

      Big Pharma makes profits selling drugs to your neighbour. The booze industry makes profits selling their addictive drug to your neighbour. So what is the problem? The State doesn’t own your neighbour — or you — and nas no business running your life. Of course, many have done so: the Soviets, the Nazis, and various other fascist and communist regimes.
      Dr Paul talks sense, not hysteria.
      RON PAUL for president in 2012!
      Restore America to Constitutional government and peace, prosperity and liberty!

    • palmerm

      big pharm already does

    • joah

      Anyway you cook the issue some one will sell meth to your neighbor.
      The war on drugs is not decreasing the supply of dangerous illegal drugs like meth and heroin. However very few people use meth or heroin. And the hard drugs should be illegal, but plant form should be legal like poppies and coca plants and cannabis. Plants are far safer than any illicit drug or manufactured pharmaceutical. People cry about the cost to society what do you think the medical cost to society is for fda approved drugs? Its all the same.

      • Ridahoan

        I don’t have a problem with legalizing many ‘drugs.’ But not many others. It’s a fine line that seems to require a GOVERNMENT to find.

    • Clifton Middleton

      Free Market Hemp is the solution to the drug problem as millions of folks will replace the myriad drugs modern society has created and sold. FMH will can replace foreign oil as a source of fuel creating millions of green jobs. The drug war is against the people by the government and big pharma. Plant It Everywhere and prosper …

    • dell

      News flash, someone already is making a BIG profit selling meth to your neighbor.
      Thus your neighbor has to steal and rob to support their habit.

    • Sleuth51

      Let’s see selling meths to your neighbor: Do we need a huge government bureaucracy that borrows forty cents in the dollar from the Chinese to pay for this agency to go to your neighbor’s house and break down the door (After the second attempt. The first attempt failed because they had the wrong house number. They broke down your door by accident. Not to worry. The law exonerates drug busters of all mishaps, body counts not withstanding). Should these thugs then arrest your neighbor for a victimless crime and incarcerate him/her for a couple of years?

      The answer is: No, because your neighbor was educated at a public school (for which we as taxpayers paid a bundle). Such education, if worth anything, should have taught your neighbor personal responsibility, which includes making wise choices. However, if your neighbor chooses to live on the edge and in so doing destroys himself, so be it. There is no need for me as a taxpayer to either take responsibility for his bad choices, or pay for law enforcement to protect him from making bad choices.

      Public education is more interested in teaching about race relations and climate warming (nothing wrong with that) than Constitutional government, which includes the limited powers of government when it comes to taking care of us from cradle to the grave.

      • Ridahoan

        Fair enough, but I think selling meth is not victimless, whether a crime or not. Corporations would probably be far better at it than their dealer, who, yes, I do think should have his door broken down.

    • mike

      Good point. Ron Paul has some great ideas, but this is one of his really bad ones.

    • standbyyourvansandt

      someone is making a profit regardless.

    • Mike Stahl

      They make a profit selling bourbon now, and if your neighbor uses meth-they make a profit on that as well.

      “Should” has little to do with it in practical terms, there is no way to control the drug trade through law enforcement. It has been tried, and has failed utterly, it needs to end.

      Of course, it “should” have never been tried in the first place, but that is a different question. You are being asked if you want to continue to beat your head against a wall.

  • Jason

    Ridahoan – The GOVERNMENT sells Tobacco and Alcohol to your neighbor…..what is a little marijuana going to hurt.

    • Ridahoan

      Well the government can sell them pot too as far as it makes me a profit. Pot isn’t meth, meth isn’t spice, spice isn’t heroin, heroin isn’t LSD, LSD isn’t pot … Some of those I’d be fine with, not others. Particularly, I’d be fine with those in which it isn’t pretty obvious that it will negatively impact my life. That’s the problem pushing libertarianism as a dogma — it only makes sense if every man is an island, and well, maybe a hundred years ago out in the west for those so inclined but not anymore, for better or worse.

      • standbyyourvansandt

        It is all around you right now, legal or not. Citizens wont start using drugs just because it is legal. Our prison system is full of drug addicts who are surrounded 24/7 by violent criminals and the druggies have to choose which race hater side to be on. It seems a little strange.

  • Richard Gere

    The nation’s gerbils collectively shout ‘NNNNOOOO!”

    • Ridahoan

      Where are those stupid little gerbils?

  • Paul decries ‘war on drugs’ in Washington state campaign stop – Fox News | Amazing News

    […] in SeaTacPatch.comIn Washington State, Paul Decries 'War on Drugs'NBC 5 Dallas-Fort WorthRon Paul: Why Can't We 'Put Into Our Body Whatever We Want?'CBS LocalWashington Post -The Seattle Timesall 314 news articles » This entry […]

  • Wigger

    @Ridahoan – I agree – however our pharmacies are already selling and charging your neighbor :)

    • Ridahoan

      Nah, they don’t have health insurance.

  • Troy C

    Ron Paul is the real deal and those who say his foreign policy is off should look at the unconstitutional wars we have been engaging in over the past 15 years. Most military donations go to Ron Paul because he doesn’t want to put our son’s lives at risk for wars over oil and other corporate interests…
    Ron Paul audited the Federal Reserve and discovered trillions in private undisclosed loans.
    Ron Paul 2012

    • krp

      There are far too many GIs that served on bases in Germany that came home with German or French or Japanese wives, to say that it is a bad thing to have bases overseas.

    • FencePostSquatter

      Bush got approval by congress. Remember, John Kerry, Hillary, Reid, Pelosi all voted for the authorization of war. Define unconstitutional. You must mean Egypt or the recent use of Drones by Obama.
      I am one that agrees that Ron Paul is the real deal. However, the 15% that is his foreign policy is insane. I don’t know if you have been paying attention, but outside our borders, things are approaching Chaos. Many places, Chaos is the norm. That can’t be left completely alone.
      If you want your backyard to be safe for your kids, you can’t allow hundreds of hornets nest to thrive on the other side of your back fence. You say that it is unconstitutional. I say our Government is directed by our constitution to protect against threats foreign and domestic.
      Now, you and I agree more than can be expressed in a short note. The amount of money we are sending to people that want us to fall off the face of the earth, is completely ludicrous. That is different than being on the offensive against potential threats. Ask Poland how their WWII strategy worked out for them.
      I watch Ron Paul’s speeches. His ideas about most things are right on. However, he can’t stay on track with any of this rhetoric. He serially goes on tangent after tangent. I hear bits of genius, but by the end of his answer, I am confused by what his answer to the issue/question really was. I have trouble imagining him winning.

      • Karizmata

        humble man on that stage making a bold stand – quite contrasted against the establishment GOP liberal fake conservative political hacks

      • Diogenes

        I hate to be the one to interrupt your complete belief in what we are told in the media, but WE are the ones fomenting the chaos. We riled up the people in Egypt, Libya, Syria and we keep poking Iran in the eye with a stick. We sent in al Qaida (now going by the name of the Moslem Brotherhood) to replace regimes we formerly supported. Did you think we would leave Iraq and stop ordering war equipment from manufacturers and all those war-related contractors? THEN you’d see some real unemployment, since our biggest industry by far is war.

        What makes a war unconstitutional (under both Bush and Obama) is the failure to have Congress authorize it. Presidents can’t just decide on their own, or at the direction of the UN or NATO, to go to war. Yet they do. Congress should formally reprimand them for that.

        I know what you mean about the tangents when he speaks. He is trying to lay out the background for his positions because he approaches things differently than the others. He’s trying to be like a professor and educate people on the issues, but there’s not enough time in debates for him to do that. You should listen to him do a speech without the clock running – you’d swear you were listening to one of the founding fathers. You can find some on youtube.

      • TruthBeTold

        Osama Obama Biden (Bi)n La(den)
        One coincidence? Two coincidences?
        The odds of the president’s and vice president’s last names combined having the same 9 consecutive letters as the name of the most wanted terrorist is over 5 trillion to 1.

        Unelected officials have taken over Washington and are orchestrating the daily news. Most of the comments and replies you’re reading online are government created too. With many stories the COMMENTS ARE CREATED BEFORE THE STORY IS REPORTED. They are designed to generate a response to engage “dangerous people” in real time.

        The oldest, first, highest, best, and most popular rated comments are almost all government propaganda. They are conducting Psy-ops (psychological operations) for domestic spying. They have 1000s of user names and are determined to bury the truth or ATTACK anyone leaking it.

        Our next election is shaping up to be as big of a sham as the last. Do you know why Sarah Palin’s bus tour was really canceled? Do you know why she stayed 30 miles away from the second debate and chose the death of Steve Jobs to announce that she’s not running? Know what leaked out? Sarah Palin and Cain aren’t in the race for the same reason, the truth leaked out.

      • Janet

        Wow, “TruthBeTold” you are a nutjob. Off the meds are we? I am not with the government and am a conservative Republican and there are a lot of us who really don’t like Ron Paul. Why isn’t he winning the primaries if all of this is just conspiracies by the government? LOL

      • TruthBeTold

        Janet, thanks for proving my point government poster. Bully, attack, discredit, and divert attention, I wouldn’t expect anything else. That’s why it’s called a cover up.

      • Ty

        Ron Paul is a Non-Interventionist. Our Founders the geniuses that they were warned us of entangling alliances, and now we are all tangled up in the spider’s web so to speak.
        We can not fight every country we disagree with. Did we attack China when they were weak, and developing nukes? Or Pakistan, or North Korea?
        What has changed?
        If it is because of defense of Israel, guess what they like to believe they are the Creators chosen people right, well if they believe that would He not protect them from harm?
        Christian warmongers how do you answer this? As far as I know the Creator doesn’t need any help destroying things remember Sodom, and Gomorrah, and Egypt.
        Lets say we help Israel smash Iran’s nuke program who is to say Russia or China would not just give Iran an already built nuke with advance missile capabilities.
        We are steadily growing our list of enemies who will join together against us, and we don’t have the technological upper hand anymore to fall back on.
        Nuking everyone is not the answer.

      • GHyden

        Congressional approval and a Declaration of war are 2 different things. If we are to go to war then DECLARE WAR and then win it these police actions and nation building aren’t in our best interests. We have been in Afganistan and Iraq for a decade and after trillions of dollars we are no better off.

      • Texas_Chris

        You agree with Ron Paul on domestic issues because he follows the constitutioin.

        Yet, you disagree with his views on foreign issues because he follows the constitution.

      • FencePostSquatter

        My point is that war, when voted upon in Congress is very constitutional. You hear Bush being called out as a war criminal, and that is ridiculous. He got approval.

        To your point, Ron Paul is right on domestic issues because he follows the constitution. However, I don’t agree with the idea that having Military Bases on foreign soil is against our constitutional standards Ron Paul has a right to an opinion that says ~it is not a good idea ~… but most agree that they are not a violation. If most didn’t agree, Paul would win in a landslide.

        In summary I don’t agree with him on his foreign affairs, because he is wrong on many of his views OF the constitution with regards TO foreign affairs.

      • Mike

        “I don’t know if you have been paying attention, but outside our borders, things are approaching Chaos. Many places, Chaos is the norm.”

        The chaos is created by poor foreign policy fueled by the elites desire for one world government. The US needs to return to nationalistic sentiment. We need to leave the rest of the world alone. We haven’t won a war since 1945.

      • highwayjournal

        This is because he can’t give you a quick 1 minute answer, there’s a philosophy behind it. He has a very limited amount of time to give you background and help you understand where he’s coming from and how all issues tie into the same philosophy of liberty and the Constitution. (for example, the economy and foreign policy are very much the same issue). You’ve gotta do your own HW and look into it a little more than what the mainstream media puts out there. I strongly suggest you read “Blowback: The Costs and Consequences of American Empire”

  • Justin Case

    I am always felt that all drugs should be legalized till I had a group of meth addicts move next door, If you have never had a “Group” of meth addicts living next door then you are missing out. I still believe that Marijuana should be 100% legal but as far as other drugs like crack, meth, PCP and others I do not think that they should be legal. No one has ever smoked a joint and then became violent so perhaps some common since is in order. Meth effects more than just the user.

    • Tina

      The Argument with Ron Paul is this is a State’s Rights issue, not Federal. For over 100 years, they WERE legal. You’re implying if we legalize heroin or meth tomorrow, everyone’s gonna use heroin? And you must live in a Shoothole of a neighborhood for Crack addicts to move in next door.

      • FencePostSquatter

        Everyone won’t use heroin, but an assured result is that more people will use it than we have using it today? You can’t name one good thing that can come of it. I don’t know if you have seen the affects of that kind of addiction ( I am talking hard drugs ). I don’t think a civilized society will be able to allow that to happen.

        Now, with that being said… I think we are talking apples and oranges when you throw Marijuana in with the hard drugs. The idea that we are outlawing a plant that grows naturally from the ground, that only seems to cause a food shortage in your own refrigerator sounds to me like we are over stepping a bit. And that is from someone who does not partake. I don’t think our society will be better off legalizing it (see the Gross Domestic Product of any nation where it is legal), but do we really want to wage an expensive war against it?

    • CBS

      Meth was invented because it could be cooked in the US. It would never had been invented if there had been easy access to cocaine.

      • Justin T

        The whole argument is flawed from the outset — the position that we need to “outlaw” certain drugs to “protect” everyone else.

        Now, given, if there were a drug that made people immediately go out and murder other people, you might have an argument. But there isn’t.

        A far better approach is spending the money wasted on prisons and spend it on REHABILITATION. That’s a LOT of money, folks, and it would go a long way in helping people.

    • beebee1

      Clearly, the fact that meth is currently ILLEGAL did not prevent meth addicts from living next door to you. Whether such drugs are legal or not, anyone who commits a crime while using them should be held fully accountable – as far as legal repercussions go, being drunk or high should be an aggravating factor not a mitigating one.

    • cp

      you do realize that every single case of mass shootings in the last 15 years in the United States were all carried out by people who were confirmed to be on LEGAL psycho tropic drugs such as prozac and other variaties of…

  • Jeff-in-Atlanta

    @Ridahoan — What right do you have to dictate to your neighbor what he can and can’t put into HIS body. Look out for your own body and let him look out for his.

    • Ridahoan

      I don’t know them well enough to be worried about their bodies for them. I am worried about mine, and their lack of muzzle control with that crossbow.

    • Marc

      There are two problems with this platform, first is economic, who has to pay for the health care of the individuals who take the path of legally doing heroin, cocaine, etc.

      Once it’s legalized will we not have to now legally give them health care? If you come up with a system where their health costs don’t further skyrocket medical costs and forces THEM to personally pay for it then sure.. sounds great… except we all know how successful drug addicts are so good luck in collecting any money.

      Second, the discussion about “rights” is not accurate… does the federal government have the right to ban these things?

      Personally I would agree with Paul and say No they do not… however I think states do have the right.

      I think cities and towns do have the right.

      I think society has the right to police itself and set its own guidelines on acceptable behavior.

      If a state votes to legalize drugs.. let them… the people chose to do it… let them deal with the fallout… if there is none then they are proof that perhaps something wasn’t an issue.

      It also gives me the right to leave that state if I don’t agree with their choice.

      • SquidVetOhio

        @Doug. You are the one that makes no sense. How do you think we have the laws we have? Because society deems what is acceptable and what isn’t. We have zoning laws, drunk driving laws, fruad laws and do you know what it is based on? MORALITY. The reason drugs are illegal is becaused society believe they are immoral. Do you know why murder is illegal? Because society finds it immoral. Without morallity, you have no basis for law. You might say “muder is illegal because your violating my rights.” So what? Why is that wrong? Because it is morally wrong to violate your rights. There’s no getting around it.

      • Mr. Truth

        Good point, Marc. Why would we want to add yet another unhealthy group to the list that places burdens on healthcare and causes insurance rates to rise?

      • John

        It would cost less then 1/10th of what is spent on the WOD to treat drugs as a medical issue I would rather spend $1.5 Billion for treatment and education as opposed to the current $15+ Billion for the WOD, at the federal level alone.

      • Doug

        People have rights. Governments have power. “Society”, is not an entity, and can’t have a right to anything.

        “I think society has the right to police itself and set its own guidelines on acceptable behavior.”
        This sentence is meaningless. You could say “Some individuals have the right to tell others how to live.” It wouldn’t be correct, but at least it wouldn’t be meaningless.

      • beebee1

        First of all, we should all be paying for our own health care, particularly when we have participated in activities which we know can hurt us (this could include drug/tobacco/alcohol use, overeating/poor diet, inherently dangerous activities including some sports and so on. It makes no sense to single out drugs with respect to the healthcare issue.

        As for who should regulate drug use, personally I think it should be left up to the individual. However, I think that allowing states to do so rather than the federal government would be a vast improvement over the present situation.

  • above average joe

    how about we stop all the barroom arguments around the drug issue and admit that when we had a prohibition on alcohol it brought this country gang violence it had never seen before over bootleg liquor and the same holds true for drugs.

    Hate gangs and gang violence? Hate the fact that gang violence is used as an argument to take away your second amendment? Angry about border violence? Legalize drugs, regulate them and tax them like you did alcohol and you strip these gangs of their money supply.

    To those of you like Ridahoan here’s a quick heads up, SOMEONE ALREADY IS PROFITING FROM SELLING YOUR NEIGHBOR DRUGS. Worse yet he or she is using those profits to sponsor more violence and gang activity.

    The war on drugs started over 50 years ago, and has been a TOTAL FAILURE. Heroine was the reason it began, and fast forward to today and heroine is still one of the cheapest drugs on the street.

    Stop listening to the big pharma, corporate prison propaganda and LEGALIZE.

    • Ridahoan

      Well I’d agree with you when it comes to pot and many other substances, but not all. I think it is a fair question and fairly ridiculous to treat all drugs, just like all weapons, equally. If you legalize meth [insert other highly addictive and destructive drug of your choice] then you will probably increase its use. Do you really want that world?

      Obviously the war on drugs has been a failure except for those profiting from it, but I think the fact that heroin is cheap on the street may not be a good example of its failure– if it is cheap, there is little money in it, and less crime pushing it. Of course, that may just mean people are doing meth instead….

    • Marc

      Again, who is going to pay for the massive health care costs that come from tens of millions people now doing these drugs who never thought to seek them out before?

      How much are they going to cost after taxing them? and regulationg them, etc?

      If the cost of the drug is still high then illegal drugs are still an issue… look at cigarettes… the mobs (russian, italian,etc) already run udnerground cigarette production because the price is too high.

      WHile I agree with the idea that the federal government should stay out of it, I don’t think states should be denied that right or that society can’t police itself.

      Let society police itself… if they vote to legalize drugs,let them.

      • Cpyder

        Emergency rooms cannot turn anyone away because on an inability to pay, its one of the many requirements for an emergency room.

        So seriously?? What makes you think that the tax payer (medicare,medicaid) or the personal health insurance holder is not already paying for it? So your analogy has no real world bearing on the legalization of illicit substances.

        If they were legalized, the taxes generated from the sale of the legalized substances can be applied to help offset the cost of care due to hospital and ER visits caused by the substances themselves.

        ^^ That’s what happens when you try to make sense.

      • Mary

        Don’t you ALL know that marijuana is just the first step to further harmful and devastating use of hard drugs? I’m listening but so far I am not convinced for legalization.

    • Adam

      AMEN – you really ARE above-average. And so is Ron Paul – the only candidate with the guts to even talk about this issue.

  • Marc

    Who pays for your health care in the years to come?

    I tell you what, if you work out a system where you are denied health care if you are found to be taking heroine, crack or drinking gasoline I’ll sign up.

    • beebee1

      Who is going to pay for your healthcare if you indulge in unhealthy habits (drinking, smoking, drugs, poor diet/overeating, lack of exercise, etc). or dangerous activities (coal mining, demolition, law enforcement, rock climbing, skateboarding, surfing, etc). Health insurers should be able to charge higher premiums based on the level of risk that their clients present. With socialized healthcare, of course, either we will all pay or the nanny state will intervene to “protect” us – not only from drugs but from transfats, Happy Meals and so on.

      • Ridahoan

        or if your parents engaged in blatantly risky behaviour such as having sex without birth control after she was over 40, leading to Down’s. Why should I have to pay for that?

  • Barry Cooper

    In a sign of things to come, many large corporations are apparently now routinely including nicotine on their list of substance for which they test, and if the person comes back positive, they aren’t hired. Big Brother is on the move, and wanting to regulate every last aspect of your life. Only a genuine Liberal (classic LIberalism included all the territory that was resurrected under the term “libertarianism) like Paul is going to make much of a difference. They want to tell us what to eat, what to drive, how much to drive, where to live, and generally what is “good” for us. This is intolerable, and simply incompatible with liberty.

    Ron Paul is truly the only credible conservative in the race. In his domestic beliefs he argues for everything I liked about Barry Goldwater. In his foreign policy, he is George McGovern. It’s an odd mix, and even though I am a hawk, I am far more worried about out internal enemies than any other nation, and quite willing to trade wars for a sustainable political environment.

    I wrote a piece supporting Ron Paul, which I hope to get people to email around to their friends. The media has largely shut Paul out, and certain basic facts about him and the other Republicans need to be made known.

    The most important fact is that we borrow $120 billion or so a month, and this will continue under Romney, Santorum, and Gingrich. None of them have a plan to stop it. They are conservatives in name only.

    • Ridahoan

      Actual question here — isn’t it consistent with a libertarian platform to allow corporations to hire who they want, including those who do not smoke? Isn’t it a form of regulation and big government invasion into the free economy to tell businesses otherwise?

      Really, I just can’t translate libertarian ideals into practice without a muddle.

      I think a small step forward would be to separate health care from employment. The individual should buy his own health care — why should this be a responsibility of the employer? Then there would be less reason for the business to worry about the arguably legitimate cost of hiring a smoker.

    • krp

      This foreign policy is that of Howard Dean. Remember him? The guy that represented the “Democratic Wing of the Democratic Party”.

      Ron Paul is really a Democrat and has no business in the GOP primaries. He should have changed parties and given Obama a primary challenge.

      • Barry Cooper

        Please show me where ANY of the remaining “Republican” candidates is going to do ANYTHING to reduce the size of government that matters.

        If it is bad that Obama has put us in a position of borrowing $120 billion a month, is it not beyond pathetic that only Ron Paul has committed to stopping that?

        The deal is this: I am willing to give the Left a George McGovern if they will let me elect a Barry “Goldwater. It’s a compromise, but in my view one well warranted by my belief that the greatest threat to our nation is bankruptcy, not Islamic terrorism.

  • Veronica

    Justin, the meth heads next door are doing meth even though it’s illegal, so what’s your point? These drug laws aren’t stopping anybody from doing illegal drugs – btw more people are addicted to and die from legal prescription drugs than the illegal kind. Maybe we should take away the xanax from all the addicted soccer moms and see how they like it.

    • Justin Case

      I agree with you about the tweakers smoking meth regardless of the law but as long as it remains illegal I can call the cops when they act up and that forces them to settle down and hunker down for the night. Keeping meth illegal will not slow down the shot out users but it does give me a tool by which to protect my family before they get so far out of control that I have to resort to more forceful and permanent options. The only thing that will slow the advance of meth is education but there is very little hope for those already on the stuff. Please learn about the stuff.

      • beebee1

        If meth were legal, it would not prevent you from calling the cops on your out-of-control neighbors. Their bad behavior would still be illegal (i.e. disturbing the peace, making threats, and whatever else they are doing that causes you to need police intervention).

      • Tina

        You sound like you know the lingo. Do you snort or smoke?

    • Marc

      So are we gong to prescribe heroin? That’s the only way your analogy really works.

      Now milions more are exposed to these now legal addictive substances, yet you see no problem with that? Not everyone seeks out drugs… most don’t care about them but now they will be public with exposure… you don’t see that influx as a bad for our society and country?

      The drug laws are stopping people… you can’t poiint to the ones who are and say look it’s not stopping anyone…

      That’s like saying look those people rob houses….laws aren’t stopping anyone from robbing houses….

      And again, who has to pay for the hospitalization of these people and all their health costs because now millions more are ingesting these horrible substances?

      Are they? I doubt that., Are you going to? I didn’t think so.

      • Elise

        There will not be a significant increase in the amount of people who use drugs if they are legalized. If drugs are legalized, that will not stop employers from drug testing their employees (they currently do this for nicotine in many places as well, even though it is legal).

        Productive members of society will not do drugs if they want to get and keep a job. Even without drug testing, I would not do bad drugs and I would not smoke pot every day. Just like I don’t go out and drink every night, because otherwise it would make me unproductive.

        You talk about robbing houses, but this is a completely different subject. Laws are meant to keep me from harming you and to protect personal property (ie. murder & theft). If I smoke pot in my house every night, I’m not harming you. Now if I smoke pot and then go and rob your house, I have cross the line.

        You have mentioned healthcare numerous times. If we think of health care in this manner, then should we not provide health care for those who drink alcohol or for those who smoke or eat too many burgers? Should we make these things illegal because there may be people who can’t pay for their health care at some point?

      • aubreyfarmer

        Illegal drugs have and are are funding insurgencies around the globe and undermining our own liberty here at home. Wachovia launders half a billion in drug money while at the same time contributing to the reelection campaigns of many in Congress. The fact that drugs are illegal provides a ready source of funding for crooked politicians and crooked bankers and that is the real reason behind today’s drug laws. Unless forced to, these crooks will never give up the enormous amount of profits from illegal drugs. In fact the privatization of prisons is another attempt at generating ever more profits by implementing ever harsher drug laws as a way to increase prison populations and insure those corporations continue to reap profits off the backs of taxpayers. The war on drugs is being used to strip us of our liberty under the guise of fighting drugs. It is all a lie. The US has the largest number of people per capita in prison in the entire world.

      • Mike

        “So are we gong to prescribe heroin? That’s the only way your analogy really works.”

        No, we prescribe Fentanyl and its 33 times more powerful than heroin.

  • Robbzilla

    Cool. Oops… looks like you’re roid raging right now! Bam!

    Hey! I just fixed 2 problems! The “drug” one and the freaking idiot one! Yay for me!

  • Sirena

    I like the survival of the fittest (of the smartest). Let them kill themselves taking drugs. It should only take a generation or two. Meanwhile, arm yourselves to protect your families. Once the drugheads are gone, we can get back to business as usual.

    • Ridahoan

      Oh, we are armed. But who wants the mess?

  • charles houston

    And, why do we have to pay for things we don’t want in our body, like fluoride?

    Make government (politicians) obey our income tax law.

    “Exempt income” 26 CFR 1.861-8T(d)(2)(ii)
    “Income that is not” 26 CFR 1.861-8T(d)(2)(iii)

    • Klaus

      Exactly. The same people who run the war on drugs ship the drugs in and launder the drug money, then forcibly medicate us with industrial waste and Big Pharma patented drugs. The only reason they made heroin illegal was because a pharmaceutical company patented a substitute for it. Same for cocaine and the others. Not recommending drug use of any kind, but more people die every year from prescription drugs than from illegal drugs. Pharmaceutical drugs pose a bigger threat to society than terrorism, if deaths and organ damage are the measure.

    • Pyrometman

      @ Tommy

      “Klaus, are you really really really so ignorant to believe that rant that you just gave about more people dieing every year from the LEGAL use of prescription drugs than illegal drugs? Or Klaus do you think the problem might be the illegal sale of prescription drugs? Or Klaus are you just that ignorant?”

      By all means, please show us all the statistics that show ILLEGAL drug deaths are higher than LEGAL prescription drug deaths. Please show us the rate of deaths due to the illegal sale of legal prescription drugs. People want to know. You will never change the rate of drug addiction to either illegal, or legal drugs by simply calling them illegal. As long as there will be people dumb enough or pressured enough by their friends into using, the rate of addition won’t change. Meanwhile, thousands die on the border, many of them law abiding US citizens in a “War on Drugs” that simply isn’t going anywhere or accomplishing anything.

    • Pete

      Right on Zed! It is time we start using that word, as we quiclkly turn into slaves!

      “Clearly it is time for revolution”.

    • Elle

      Its not only the people who want to legalize drugs, how about people like
      my family who do not want to go and attack other countries and
      be involved in WWIII.

      We should not go to war to fight the battles of any other country,
      even the Vatican

    • Pete

      Rich, I’m an 18 year veteran police officer and I support Paul. Sucks being wrong, huh?

    • Pyrometman


      Clearly you haven’t listened to what Ron Paul has said. He has never said anything about legalizing drugs. His position is to let the States decide on drug laws. I have been supporting Ron Paul since June 2007 but never on the issue of drugs. I don’t do drugs and I’m not a “Paulbot” as you put it. I do support freedom, which is something you won’t find in any other candidate, or in Obama. What you have stated in your post is your personal opinion, not necessarily truth, and you are being unfair trying to portray all Ron Paul supporters as drug users, which is simply NOT the case.

    • Owen

      @RICH- No offense, but you have absolutely no idea what you are talking about. I’ve never taken drugs in my life, don’t smoke, don’t drink, and I am a proud “Paul Robot.” There are tens if not hundreds of thousands like me who support Dr. Paul.

      Please re-examine, with greater scrutiny, whichever collectivist system from whence your worldview was adopted. You will find that it is you who have been asleep. But you need not be any longer! Join those of us who want to restore our country, protect our liberty and live responsibly!

    • Tommy

      Klaus, are you really really really so ignorant to believe that rant that you just gave about more people dieing every year from the LEGAL use of prescription drugs than illegal drugs? Or Klaus do you think the problem might be the illegal sale of prescription drugs? Or Klaus are you just that ignorant?

      • Klaus

        Whether a drug is illegal or legal depends on who makes the drug. If it is natural and easy to make, crooks in our government made it illegal. If it is protected by a patent, crooks in our government made it legal. Legalization never had anything to do with public safety. That cover was used only as propaganda so you would more easily give away your rights. Just as child porn is used as propaganda why you should give up your internet privacy rights, or Islamic terrorism to trick you to give up your Fourth Amendment rights.

      • Klaus

        Most victims of prescription drugs obtain them legally. Rush Limbaugh, for example. When he took 180 pills of narcotics every day, he did so legally; otherwise, he would be in jail.

    • David Wooten

      “like I have said over, and over again the reason,and the only reason these Paul robots support this guy is for one reason only…LEGALIZE DRUGS,LEGALIZE DRUGS,LEGALIZE DRUGS PERIOD!!!!! ”

      You don’t what you’re talking about, RICH. I have no desire to use recreational drugs but I do take nutritional supplements, some for memory and brain function enhancement and which the FDA is constantly trying to stop. And, I’m also supporting Ron Paul because he is the only one who would restore the gold standard and get rid of the Federal Reserve which caused the Great Depression and the one we’re in now. It is you that has the ‘brain’ of a robot, RICH.

    • bob-0

      RICH may the chains of slavery reslightly upon you.

    • Blackops

      RICH, your clueless. RP has never ever said legalize drugs,,,
      beside, what do you think, they decriminalize & regulate all drugs and everyone that isnt already is going to be higher than i kite all the time? they only thing that will change is the 800,000 people in prison for non-violent drug crimes would be set free, the black market dries up and all the Al Capone types go away because it becomes unprofitable.
      However, the government is NEVER going to do that because as Klaus said…
      “The same people who run the war on drugs ship the drugs in and launder the drug money, then forcibly medicate us with industrial waste and Big Pharma patented drugs. The only reason they made heroin illegal was because a pharmaceutical company patented a substitute for it. Same for cocaine and the others. Not recommending drug use of any kind, but more people die every year from prescription drugs than from illegal drugs. Pharmaceutical drugs pose a bigger threat to society than terrorism, if deaths and organ damage are the measure.”
      Its call the Big Pharma Lobby…
      You should educate yourself before commenting and making a fool of yourself.

      The war on drugs should be rightly named the “war on personal freedoms”

      • Klaus

        Blackops, you hit the nail on the head. The war on drugs is a front for the tyrannical war on our personal freedoms.

    • Ryan

      Amen Paul. This country is going to collapse without the “radical” leadership of Paul and the restoration of our founding principles.

    • Bob

      In response to Rich you couldn’t be more wrong. Ignorance is bliss I guess. Kiss your rights and country goodbye fool.

    • latinos_for_ron_pablo

      !# Note to Neo-Cons including the Laureate : your empire is ending in Afghan where most do. The largess and egesta are over.

      Annihilation and secularizing masquerading as patriotism; ditto for the Fatherland. The welfare/warfare state is with you; the workers aren’t.

      True conservatism isn’t congruous with big-gummint; and Crony Capitalism that socializes debt – isn’t entrepreneurship.

      Chickenhawks all in a loud, empty suit worn by a furtive, Runyonesque character.

      But of course Neo-Cons, and Neo-Liberals like BHO and the Trailer-trash Twins only suckle for absolute, Communistic power.

      They have a problem. That 800-lb gorilla and elephant in the room isn’t your wife’s “back door man”, that’s the next President.

      A world statesman and America’s only statesman in a century of Progressive wh0res and psychopaths; his positions simply are based on truth. Only the healthcare tragedy is complicated – I think myriad subsidies should be unified under a national healthcare plan during the 5-yr interim it would take to return to a free market. However this is better than Neo-Cons and Neo-Liberals not understanding their own speechwriters’ talking points. Think “pro-Life” debaucherer, Bush the Younger – with earpiece – aborting fratboy love-child(ren) and blocking 5,6 state, anti-abortion measures : while murdering the sons of the politically non-connected, and followers of the world’s three, great religions (all Semitic in origin):
      Shrub and Bolton playing musical chairs with National Guards, doctor-son Cheney on 5 yrs bed rest – Sambo deferred for “close and personal” punjis and point.

      Obviously they only give lip-service to Statesman Paul’s traditional Republican and true Conservative agenda of liberty and prosperity through Free-Market Capitalism [NOT imperial protectionism viz isolationism]; because they’ll never be more than Communist demagogues.


      @ Rich

      How can you possible make such a statement that all Ron Paul supporters are behind Paul because we want to legalize drugs? This is such a ridiculous accusation. I am a Ron Paul supporter and have been for many years. I don’t condone drug use. I support Ron Paul for many reasons. He is the only candidate who has never flipped flopped on issues even if they are believed to be unpopular. He stays firm on his principles. I have an immense amount of respect for a candidate who has a proven voting record that is consistent to what he has always said he will do for his constituents. He is a rare gem among politicians. Politicians lie all the time. They do whatever it takes to put more taxpayer’s money into their pockets. Ron Paul DOES NOT do that. In fact, he returns money to the treasury each year. He is for the people. He is for minimal government. I support Ron Paul because I believe in freedom and I believe in personal responsibility. I have a big problem with the government telling me what I cannot do. I have a big problem with the government continuously spending our taxpayer’s money VERY unwisely. I have a big problem with the US policing the world and staying in these ENDLESS wars to end “Terrorism” which has only resulted in putting he US in trillions of dollars in debt, losing many innocent lives and the lives of our brave soldiers, and destroying our own freedom her in the US with the TSA and more. Paul is the only candidate who is offering real solutions. He is the only candidate how’s ultimate goal is to RESTORE America. And that my friend is EXACTLY why I and many others are Ron Paul supporters. On another note, I find it disturbing when people use the term PAULBOTS. Let’s be real here, mainstream media DOES NOT like Ron Paul and I know many so called conservative republicans who despise Paul and will just about vote for anyone before they would vote for him. Who will these Republicans vote for? They will vote for whomever the MAINSTREAM media tells them to vote for. This election alone is a classic example. We started off with Rick Perry in the lead, then Herman Cain, Romney after that, Gingrich for a little bit and now everyone is on the Santorum bandwagon…why because MAINSTREAM media told them so. I know many republicans personally who continuously changed there mind on which candidate to support in the exact order I listed above simple based upon the fact that they were BRAINWASHED by the main stream media. So there you go RICH. Who really are the robots here? CERTAINLY NOT RON PAUL SUPPORTERS. Quit being such a coward and vote for a candidate that will actually make REAL changes in America.

    • Loretta Nall

      Tommy…more peopled die every year from prescription drug overdose than from all illicit drug overdose deaths combined. Heres proof.
      Perhaps a tad of research before mouthing off and calling someone else names will save you from future humiliation

    • jason

      Rich, I also don’t do drugs but show me in the Constitution where the federal government has the power to ban any substance. This is similar to prohibition which didn’t work and the only difference is that alcohol has a far larger usage base. People who do drugs do them anyway. the “legalization” won’t make me hit the pipe but it will save trillions of US taxpayer dollars. Look at it from that standpoint and you will realize how stupid you are.

    • Midge Martin

      “The problem with Socialism is that eventually you run out of other people’s money.” – Margaret Thatcher

      We’re broke thanks to the politicians and government.

    • Andrew P.

      @Tommy: the legal and “fit” use of prescription drugs wont kill anyone eh? Suppose person is prescribed OxyContin, and they take their medicine as prescribed. Suppose that dose is large enough to make the person forget they took their dose (completely possible given the nature of the drug), so they take it again. And OD. Was that illegal?

    • @RICH

      Tylenol and Aspirin kill thousands a year and couldn’t even be passed as a drug by today’s standards…LEGAL drugs kill way way more people than illegal drugs…Hell, marijuana is used by millions and millions of people daily and you never hear of anyone dying…Pharmaceutical drugs should be illegal…

    • stopthe

      TO everyone replying to charles houston, most of your replies are irrelevant. The issue is not about safety, it is about freedom.

      We are tired of having our freedom taken away, in the name of making us safer. Please, allow me to destroy myself on drugs if I want to, rather than being kept safely in your government-created cage.

      Nothing is more obvious than that the “war on drugs” is a buffoonery that has never worked, and will never work. It accomplishes nothing except creating a black market and creating criminals where there ought to be instead freedom of choice. The federal war on drugs is unconstitutional and an abomination to the moral sense of a free people.

    • Sally

      There is no freedom. There is never going to be any freedom. The government is never going to stop growing. The socialists are never going to stop encroaching on more and more of your life. You will grow old and more conservative, and a new generation of idealistic socialist young people will come to think government can create a utopia. You will get cranky.

      I do whatever drug I want in the privacy of my own home. I do whatever sex acts I want in the privacy of my own home. One day when I am old and sick, I will kill myself in the privacy of my own home.

      What do I think about politics? I think there is no way that the world outside the privacy of my own home is ever, EVER going to become a freer place. And what I am, is the most realistic person to comment on this story today.

      Even your closest friends would only rarely reflect on their memories of you, if you had died five years ago.

      You are not that important. Do drugs, have sex, kill yourself, make some money, leave some anonymous internet comments at the bottom of news stories, no one will even know you existed 100 years from now.

      Science has proven that one day the sun is going to explode and sear off the Earth’s atmosphere. We are doomed and you could die of a stroke next year and you are worried about politics?

      The world hates you. You have to fight tooth and nail just to get an overpriced pile of bricks and a four wheeled machine to drive to your wage slavery. You amuse yourself with the circus of online news story commenting in the illusion that ANYONE in power cares whether you are living and breathing or carted off on a gurney to the stainless steel meat locker in the wall at the morgue.

      Your hope and change Obama does not care of some 8 year old girl gets fried to a crisp and winds up in a body bag due to being collateral damage in an automated drone strike in Pakistan. He certainly doesn’t care what happens to you.

      Build a high fence, stockpile canned foods, and buy some guns, smoke some pot in your back yard. Forget about health care. Why enslave yourself to pay for your life to be extended through the worst low quality years of your life? the adult diaper years? suicide is the rational choice for you when you get old.

    • RICH

      like I have said over, and over again the reason,and the only reason these Paul robots support this guy is for one reason only…LEGALIZE DRUGS,LEGALIZE DRUGS,LEGALIZE DRUGS PERIOD!!!!! And do these drug heads think he and he alone can do this all by him self,the answer is YES,and could they be further from the truth,the answer is SO FAR FROM THE TRUTH its like the distance between the earth to the sun!! WILL YOU PAULBOTS EVER WAKE UP!!!!

    • Tommy

      Loretta NULL, please read what I wrote. Through the ILLEGAL sale of prescription drugs you will get overdoses. Are you a clown NULL? The bottles have right on them the useage, and have been tested…so it is the ILLEGAL sale and MISUSE of the drugs NOT the LEGAL USE.

      Wake up NULL, and quit reading the liberal loon materials that you have been. The legal and fit use of prescription drugs is NOT going to kill anyone unless they have an allergic reaction from it.

  • Bob

    FYI, Meth wouldn’t exist except for the war on drugs. It’s simple supply and demand. People want to get high – if you hinder the supply of pot, and up the risk with jail time, people will find other ways to get high… and create meth.

    The problem of meth is a direct and predictable response to making pot illegal.

  • Tina

    Tried it, done with it. The Government and Big Banks are laundering the illegal drug trade money and the prison complex is a Billion Dollar a year industry. Who does the drug war benefit most?

    • Justin Case

      No one is ever done with Tina once they have danced with her, no such thing as a one night stand with Tina.

      • Tina

        Can tell you’re a pervert. That is for sure.

  • LT

    The problem is not necessarily what we should allow others to do to their own bodies, it is what those people do to others in order to support the acquisition of their personal drug of choice. I don’t think that making the particular drug of choice affordable is the answer either. There are other costs that have to be taken into consideration as well. The cost to society in dealing with the aftermath unless of course you are advocating that you just let the addicts die on the street.

  • above average joe

    Part of the reason heavy drug use is so prevalent now a days is partly because the heavy and most dangerous drugs are the cheapest to acquire where pot had more than quadrupled in price in the last 15 years.

    Gosh with a “war on drugs” how is it that the hardest drugs are the most inexpensive? Hmmm? Banks like Waucovia get caught laundering the money, planes full of drugs crash in Baja California in 05′ loaded with TONS of coke and they are registered to the CIA (look it up), with more people in prison than any other nation the corporate prison system looks at us all like a commodity, and the ability to strip you of your rights is just a side benefit…

    SMARTEN UP PEOPLE, and stop listening to the BS propaganda put out by the groups listed above to protect their income streams.

    Wonder why gang violence is never brought under control? They need those groups to act as the distribution arm of their multi billion dollar enterprise and you and I are nothing but the materials to be fed into the machine.

    • Mike

      5 Stars * * * * *

  • James Brenner

    Ron Paul 2012 !! The only candidate with a brain !!

  • Tina

    Ron Paul says take personal responsibility.. It is not the responsiblity of Govt. to tell you what you can and cannot take. And not the responsibilty of Govt. to aid in your recovery if you do so. It is very simple.

    • Ridahoan

      Except that is only a simple idea that isn’t simple in practice. As for the many counterexamples: parents take meth, eventually orphan their infant children. Not the responsibility of govt to take care of orphans? Is it your responsibility, mine? Some church down the street? Or nobody’s?

      I’ve lived in the third world. Primarily there it is nobody’s responsibility. In many ways the Indian street seems like libertarianism in practice.

  • Steve

    Listen, I’m all for liberty right up until it infringes upon the rights of others. “Why Can’t We ‘Put Into Our Body Whatever We Want?’ Because it would lead to everything from parents ignoring/abandoning their children as they become users to higher traffic deaths and more expensive health care. The list goes on and on. All of these things infringe on other peoples rights.

    • aubreyfarmer

      And taking my money in taxes to fight this failing war on drugs and the expense of maintaining a prison and justice system to put millions in jail that have only harmed themselves is a threat to all of us. The ability to tax is the ability to destroy. Government policy created this problem so people like you would over react and then they could impose a solution which the government had already devised before it created the problem. Our own CIA is the largest distributor of illegal drugs on the planet so of course our government is against making drugs legal. Ex FBI officials have testified that the CIA were the first to introduce “Crack” into Los Angeles. How many times does our government have to be caught telling lies and dealing drugs before even the simple minded see the war on drugs for what it is? Opium production is up by some estimates 1000% since the invasion of Afghanistan. Was the war for the purpose of cornering the world market on Opium production? Kind of looks that way to me. Kharzi’s brother is a known drug lord.

    • above average joe

      Steve, you act like that kid can’t get drugs if we don’t legalize them… that kid can get drugs at school quicker than he can find some adult to buy him or her alcohol right now… your point is 30 years of bs driven in your head… step back and look at what is already happening.

      • Spanky T Smackme

        Fred in Boise…….YOU are part of the problem with your [unish everyone attitude…..It is cheaper to treat an overdose and pay for rehabilitation then it is to house and feed them in a prison…..GET OFF YOU POMPUS HIGH HORSE and face the reality..All the drugs were perfectly fine until politicians leaned how to make a profit off them……REMEMBER the fist pot laws were made from the southern fedd BS that it would stop the blacks from raping white women. Noting more than a racist law to control (at the time a small segment of the population) the people, without knowing that it would become highly popular.

        Using drugs is no worse than smoking or deinking or binge sexing, ALL of which are GOOd for you in moderation.

      • Fred n Boise

        Agree, we should legalize all dope–with a few caveats.:

        We will not use taxpayer money or require hospitals to treat overdoses.
        We will take away and adopt out kids of consistent stoners.
        Dopers whose kids are adopted out get to be sterilized.
        No one has to hire a doper and they can be fired at will.
        Drug related crimes serve their sentences in Singapore.

        NOW, we have a level playing field for my money.

  • Tina

    Can we shoot idiots like you for making idiotic comments too?

  • Teresa

    John – I don’t even know why I’m responding to such an idiotic comment, but what if that person who “looked high on drugs” was taking prescription meds or maybe even just had a few beers? You’d still like to murder them?

    Good grief, man – are you high on drugs or something?

    BTW – “pot heads” are much less likely to kill you and your family than “hot heads” who have rage issues and mental problems.

    • Fred n Boise

      They’ll kill you by operating machinery while loaded and it’s is harder to tell someone who is stoned than it is a drunk.

      Paul has a good point, but is a jack ass for ignoring and not first having an answer to effects and cost such a change would have.

      Legalize it all. I’m for it, once you figure out how to protect my safety and money.

      • beebee1

        How is your safety protected now? Many employers, particularly those whose employees operate potentially dangerous machinery, test for drug use. They would continue to do so if drugs were legal.

    • Justin Case

      Heck yea grandma, you tell em, darn those hot heads. I say he should smoke a big ol hog leg and then readdress the issue of taking someone out. I think he will rather chill than kill once he has a bit o green that aint so mean.

blog comments powered by Disqus
6 Business Card Mistakes New Owners Make
Watch Now: Live Video & Video Highlights

Listen Live