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 This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.)

Comments (561)
  1. Ridahoan says:

    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?

    1. stloony says:

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

      1. latinos_for_ron_pablo says:

        >> 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.

      2. Ridahoan says:

        Read the comment below and you may find otherwise.

    2. Jessica says:

      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.

      1. kauboy says:

        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.

      2. mirted says:

        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.

      3. doc says:

        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.

      4. Mike B says:

        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!!

      5. Evan Reyes says:

        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.

      6. AboveAverageJoe says:

        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!

    3. Troy C says:

      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.

      1. Ridahoan says:

        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.

    4. Monty says:

      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.

      1. Ridahoan says:

        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?

    5. Robbzilla says:

      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.

      1. Ridahoan says:

        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.

    6. Jason says:

      what about cigarettes?

      1. Josie says:

        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.

    7. manapp99 says:

      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?

      1. Karizmata says:

        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?


    8. Laxon Laxoff says:

      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.

      1. Ridahoan says:

        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.

    9. Johnathan says:

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

    10. Mike Stahl says:

      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.

    11. Rakes says:

      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.

      1. Ridahoan says:

        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.

    12. Rakes says:

      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.

    13. SirSpeaksTheTruth says:

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

    14. Kaptain Kanada says:

      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!

    15. thrakazog says:

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

    16. cartlon says:

      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?

    17. mike says:

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

    18. Sleuth51 says:

      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.

      1. Ridahoan says:

        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.

    19. Clifton Middleton says:

      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 …

    20. dell says:

      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.

    21. palmerm says:

      big pharm already does

    22. joah says:

      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.

      1. Ridahoan says:

        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.

    23. Ridahoan says:

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

    24. JP says:

      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.

    25. Nicholas says:

      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”

    26. standbyyourvansandt says:

      someone is making a profit regardless.

  2. Jason says:

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

    1. Ridahoan says:

      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.

      1. standbyyourvansandt says:

        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.

  3. Richard Gere says:

    The nation’s gerbils collectively shout ‘NNNNOOOO!”

    1. Ridahoan says:

      Where are those stupid little gerbils?

  4. Wigger says:

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

    1. Ridahoan says:

      Nah, they don’t have health insurance.

  5. Troy C says:

    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

    1. FencePostSquatter says:

      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.

      1. GHyden says:

        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.

      2. Texas_Chris says:

        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.

      3. FencePostSquatter says:

        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.

      4. Mike says:

        “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.

      5. Diogenes says:

        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.

      6. Ty says:

        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.

      7. TruthBeTold says:

        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.

      8. Janet says:

        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

      9. TruthBeTold says:

        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.

      10. Karizmata says:

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

      11. 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”

    2. krp says:

      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.

  6. Justin Case says:

    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.

    1. cp says:

      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…

    2. beebee1 says:

      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.

    3. Tina says:

      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.

      1. FencePostSquatter says:

        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?

    4. CBS says:

      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.

      1. Justin T says:

        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.

  7. Jeff-in-Atlanta says:

    @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.

    1. Marc says:

      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.

      1. beebee1 says:

        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.

      2. Doug says:

        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.

      3. John says:

        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.

      4. SquidVetOhio says:

        @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.

      5. Mr. Truth says:

        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?

    2. Ridahoan says:

      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.

  8. above average joe says:

    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.

    1. Adam says:

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

    2. Marc says:

      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.

      1. Cpyder says:

        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.

      2. Mary says:

        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.

    3. Ridahoan says:

      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….

  9. Marc says:

    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.

    1. beebee1 says:

      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.

      1. Ridahoan says:

        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?

  10. Barry Cooper says:

    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.

    1. krp says:

      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.

      1. Barry Cooper says:

        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.

    2. Ridahoan says:

      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.

  11. Veronica says:

    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.

    1. Marc says:

      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.

      1. aubreyfarmer says:

        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.

      2. Elise says:

        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?

      3. Mike says:

        “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.

    2. Justin Case says:

      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.

      1. beebee1 says:

        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).

      2. Tina says:

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

  12. Robbzilla says:

    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!

  13. Sirena says:

    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.

    1. Ridahoan says:

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

  14. charles houston says:

    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)

    1. Klaus says:

      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.

    2. RICH says:

      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!!!!

    3. Tommy says:

      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?

      1. Klaus says:

        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.

      2. Klaus says:

        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.

    4. Owen says:

      @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!

    5. Pyrometman says:


      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.

    6. David Wooten says:

      “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.

    7. Loretta Nall says:

      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

    8. Pyrometman says:

      @ 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.

    9. Tommy says:

      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.

    10. jason says:

      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.

    11. Andrew P. says:

      @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?

    12. Midge Martin says:

      “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.

    13. Bob says:

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

    14. @RICH says:

      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…

    15. stopthe says:

      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.

    16. Sally says:

      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.

    17. latinos_for_ron_pablo says:

      !# 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.

    18. FREEDOM LOVER says:

      @ 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.

    19. Blackops says:

      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”

      1. Klaus says:

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

    20. bob-0 says:

      RICH may the chains of slavery reslightly upon you.

    21. Pete says:

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

    22. Elle says:

      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

    23. Pete says:

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

      “Clearly it is time for revolution”.

    24. Ryan says:

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

  15. Bob says:

    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.

  16. Tina says:

    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?

    1. Justin Case says:

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

      1. Tina says:

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

  17. LT says:

    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.

  18. above average joe says:

    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.

    1. Mike says:

      5 Stars * * * * *

  19. James Brenner says:

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

  20. Tina says:

    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.

    1. Ridahoan says:

      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.

  21. Steve says:

    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.

    1. above average joe says:

      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.

      1. Fred n Boise says:

        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.

      2. Spanky T Smackme says:

        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.

    2. aubreyfarmer says:

      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.

  22. Tina says:

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

  23. Teresa says:

    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.

    1. Fred n Boise says:

      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.

      1. beebee1 says:

        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.

    2. Justin Case says:

      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.

  24. Brian says:

    As with the creation of any new gov program, they do not want the “war on drugs” to end. If the war on drugs was won or if all drugs were made legal, do you realize how how many government workers would be out of work? From DEA officers, local police vice squads, public defenders, judges, jails, all the support staff, etc…the list is endless to the amount of people that have a job because drugs are illegal. They don’t want the problem to go away because then their jobs go away. This very fact speaks volumes as to why there should be no more government programs. Unfortunately government growth is a one way streat. When was the last time a government program or department went away?

  25. D. Morgan says:

    That’s kind of pathetic that he has to pander to drug addicts to try to get elected. The pipe dream that marijuana has no negative effects and is pure and magical and good is just that, a pipe dream, as is the thought that it’s going to make the government huge amounts of money. On the other hand if/when recreational use is sadly legalized it’ll be hilarious to watch the stoners act shocked and surprised that it’s use has all the restrictions of Alcohol and Tobacco and some even more strict ones.

    1. Justin Case says:

      Your an idiot. The man is not pandering to pot heads, he is espousing freedom, freedom in a supposedly free land and the man is correct. Cannabis never has and never will be a drug anymore than nutmeg, cinimon or any other spice in your spice rack. BTW, do you have any idea how many spices in the average spice rack can get you high as a kite?

      I’m gonna go out on a limb and say you watch TV, have some type of pay tv service and even let your kids watch the darn thing. I love TV watchers who are against pot because it will melt your mind. TV is for morons.

      1. Ridahoan says:

        Which spices? And how much? I thought I tried those when I was 14. Just to be clear, ‘spice’ was not in my mom’s spice rack.

  26. beebee1 says:

    I’m much more scared of someone like you who wants to shoot people on sight based on nothing more than their appearance.

  27. Teresa says:

    Oops … should have hit “reply” rather than “leave comment” as I did below. Guess I haven’t had enough coffee yet 🙂 🙂 🙂 but here I go again…

    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. (Though they might break into your house and steal all your snacks and old tie-dye shirts.)

  28. James B Wood says:

    Ron – Do you really need the answer to that?

    Schooltime: You SHOULD have the right to put what ever you want in your body and you should also be FULLY responsible for whatever may happen as a result of that personal freedom. Whether that may be dying of a heart attack from speed or cocaine or cheesburgers or spending the rest of your life in prison because you killed a family of 4 while driving under the influence. The problem is: people don’t want to be responsible for their actions. They want to blame everybody and everything else but themselves. As long a we live in a society that is unwilling to accept personal responsiblility, we can NOT allow that society to do whatever it wants, whenever it wants to.
    School’s out.


  29. Rick O'Shea says:

    Does he mean good sense about foreign policy?

  30. Tina says:

    You shouldn’t be allowed to mate. You’re a stupid azzhole.

  31. Keith says:

    Why are you trying to save people who obviously can not control themselves. If they aren’t useful to society, let them eliminate themselves from the gene pool. Besides which, laws only affect law abiding citizens, the drug use in this country would hardly change if it was legalized. People who want drugs are doing them now, the law doesn’t stop them. And last I checked there weren’t that many bodies lying in the streets…

  32. bob says:

    Paul is a nut on this issue, he apparently has no concept of reality.
    No matter how “cheap” you made the dope, it won’t be cheap enough for
    an unemployed addict. In addition, history proves this to be a bad

    Remember China’s opium wars where upwards of 1/3 of their population were
    addicts? The government had to put a kill order on any users to stop the
    destruction of their country.

    What about the addicts and their kids dying in the streets? You don’t honestly
    believe the idiots in this country would let them die, you know there would
    be a massive taxpayer funded rehab program etc…

    Paul’s drug stance is a ticking time bomb.

    1. Fred n Boise says:

      Good points. Hard to believe as smart as Ron Paul is he can be so dumb. What’s even more of a surprize is that his supporters never stop to think about the results of such a change either–and they don’t have being a doc as an excuse.

      I support legalizing most anything as long as it doesn’t threaten public safety or cost me money.

  33. Chris Allen says:

    Only an idiot would make such a statement on the eve of Whitney Houston’s funeral.

    1. Tina says:

      Houston died from prescription drugs with legal prescriptions… OH she did smoke crack for about 10 years too.

  34. bob says:

    @James B Wood
    “you should also be FULLY responsible for whatever may happen as a result of that personal freedom.”

    SHOULD and WOULD are two different words. you know it would NOT happen (the responsibility part). Look at the safety nets we have for people who sit around and breed all day. If you can’t get people to take responsiblity for things they did 40 years ago.. what makes you think something like dope use would change that?

  35. Mike says:

    Your comment implies that decriminalization of drugs leads to abuse. This couldn’t be further from the truth. The drug use of children over 12 years in the Netherlands is HALF of that in the United States. Time to stop drinking the Kool-Aid. Get the facts.

    Drugs, if legal, could be taxed and those funds could be used to provide assistance to those who wish to stop using. The jails would be empty of all the rediculous drug charges and society would be more free… and healthy.

    1. SerfCityHereWeCome says:

      LOL, yes, all the drug dealers would be lining up 1000 deep to pay the taxes, ROFL! No black market there or anything…

      1. thoughttempered says:

        I’ve been taking a survey for the last 35 yrs casually. Take it yourself:
        1. If you are not using recreational drugs, if they are legalized tomorrow, will you start using them?
        2. If you are user of recreational drugs, if they are legalized tomorrow, will you increase your use.
        99 to 1- the answer to both these questions will be “no”
        Also, legalization will bring the price down to almost zero – that will eliminate pushers and reduce gangs and relieve crime as most crime stems from effort to get money to buy drugs.
        Last, if we allow people to suffer the consequences of drug abuse, then abuse will self destruct. Enabling more abuse by “rehabilitation” is abusive as it take away the inherent self-education of consequences.

      2. Fred says:

        “legalization will bring the price down to almost zero – that will eliminate pushers”

        No it won’t! First of all, the profit a pusher makes is ON A MARGIN like any retail business – not the price. Secondly, there will be WAY MORE addicts being supplied at the lower price so they’ll make MORE money.

        You forgot a question: “If you are addicted to a hard drug, how many times did the pusher let you try it for free before starting to charge you for it?”

      3. frank3108 says:

        Well said Fred.

  36. Casey Jones says:

    Newsflash- people that are going to use drugs are already using drugs. Look at rates of usage in Portugal and Holland. Lower than in the US and they have essentially legalized. Nice argument you fool.

  37. Scott says:

    Take a look at what happened after the 21st amendment was ratified if you want a realistic idea of what happens when substances are decriminalized. You paint a very unrealistic picture in your post.

  38. Tina says:

    Ron Paul believes this is a State’s Rights issue, not Federal. For over 100 years, they WERE legal. People who imply if we legalize heroin or meth tomorrow, everyone’s gonna use these are not thinking at all.

    1. Fred n Boise says:

      America has changed since 1880. See previous comments about the Opium Wars in China.

      Oh, yeah, why did the dutch de-legalize drugs????

      1. Tina says:

        Paul has never, ever called for the legalisation of heroin. What he has said is that the federal drug war is unconstitutional. The constitutional position is to let the states enact drug policy themselves. Ron Paul believes in a free society where people are free to make their own choices – and yes, that includes drugs. As a Christian, he abhors drug use, but the federal government has no authority to prohibit them. The constitution gives the states the authority on this one.

      2. Texas_Chris says:

        Tina, you can’t convince some people of that logic. Most Americans think that if you don’t support drugs being illegal at the federal level, then you want everyone to be a drug addict.

      3. Spanky T Smackme says:

        Because the US Governemnt was going to use santions on them if they didnt….Another example of the US Government bulling thier way around the world.

        By the way, you keep saying you dont want to pay for it, but you are paying WAY more fore what it costs to police, hold trials and incarceration then you would EVER pay if it were legal.

    2. bob says:

      Yes Tina,
      “WERE” legal is the operative word. they were outlawed due to the massive addiction problem with opiates in the US. Cocaine and Laudanum were the favorites, and they were put in everything from tonics to food.

  39. manapp99 says:

    Where do you see any evidence that the war on drugs is stopping anyone from getting drugs now? Are you stepping over millions of alcohol addicted people since the war on booze was ended? If your kid were to experiment with drugs would you rather they get them from the drug dealer on the corner or from the pharmacy? When a policy is not saving anyone from anything but is costing billions and is ruining the lives of those caught in the crosshairs of the cartels it is time to re-think the policy and not continue throwing good money after bad.

  40. Ray says:

    I might be more persuaded on the legalization of drugs if, included in the legalization, were concrete assurances that drug addicts and people who cannot keep a job will get no Government assistance; penalties for causing injury to someone else while under the influence of drugs are strengthened; and children of drug addicts who suffer because of the addiction of their parents are taken from their parents and adopted out to a good family.

  41. Jack says:

    Spain legalized all drugs ten years ago and NOT ONE of your predictions came true…explain that to us.

  42. dixon says:

    I sure would hate to drive a car made by someone stoned or drunk.

    1. Ty says:

      Oh please have you seen what makes cars today computer controlled robots. All the humans do anymore is tighten the bolts.

  43. SquidVetOhio says:

    Riddle me this,
    If legalizing drugs would get rid or greatly reduce the drug problem, then why not legalize murder, rape, or any other crime? It’s an intellectually bankrupt argument. Drugs are legal in Amsterdam. Amsterdam still has drug addicts. Children can’t play in the parks over there because of the hyperdermic needles everywhere. Prostitution is legal and guess what? It hasn’t gone away.

    1. Spanky T Smackme says:

      Hey Squidly……murder is a loose cannon, but YES if you legalize prostitution there would be fewer rapes…As to Amsterdam, the last time I was there the ONLY drug that was legal was POT, all others were controlled, and the do righters giving out FREE NEEDLES are the ones to blame for the needles in the parks.

      As to prostitution still being there, you are right, and it will ALWAYS be there. It is the oldest profession in the world, and the people who work it should be respected, not demonized.

      MARVET Illioins

    2. bob says:

      drugs are not legal an amsterdam, that is a fallacy.

    3. Elise says:

      No one is saying that legalizing drugs will end drug use. Also, laws are meant to keep me from harming you & protect property rights, which is why murder and rape are illegal. Legalizing drugs only reduces the bad crimes associated with it (like in mexico.) Right now, if someone steals the drugs you are selling, you will probably kill them. If someone is trying to kill you over drug turf, you may kill them to protect yourself. My point is you cannot go to the police to protect yourself, the drug seller/user, because drugs are illegal.

  44. says:

    This country should be running in the democratic primary. His views of illegal drug abuse is so in line with the dirty hippy democrats. What a loon.


    1. says:

      Not “This country” but rather Ron Paul.

    2. Klaus says:

      They’re called crossover voters. I don’t think the Democrat primary is where a guy who wants to end the IRS and replace it with nothing has a chance. Romney should have run against Obama in the Democrat primary this year. But then, the only difference between them is race.

    3. Jeremy Fears says:

      You’re the loon. Have you ever read a history book? Look at what the prohibition on alcohol did: created mobsters. Look at what happened when they ended prohibition: all the mobsters went away. When’s the last time you heard of someone getting shot over an alcohol-deal gone bad? It doesn’t happen because legalizing it pushed the “crime” aspect out of the picture. The war on drugs in this country is a mirror of alcohol prohibition. Drugs are prohibited, so we have cartels. What do you think would happen if they were legalized? (I won’t connect the dots for you, although it seems obvious someone might have to)

    4. Stanley Hudson says:

      This country? Are you on illegal drugs Niloch?

    5. Bob Constantine says:

      Controlling our own bodies is not lunacy…it’s called freedom. Whether somebody is a dirty hippi or not does not mean another person should decide what a person will or will not consume.

      You appear confused and prone to using arguments that make no sense. Making something legal does not bestow “goodness”, jus the same as making something “illegal” does not bestow immorality. For instance slavery was legal at one time and it was illegal to assist another person via the underground railroad.

    6. gold says:

      Try reading a history book. Prohibition created the same violent environment with alcohol that we now have with drugs. Go to a Jim Beam distillery and tell me how many guards shoot at you now when you try and walk onto their property. It would have happened during prohibition. Actually Newt, Santorum and Romney should be running as liberals. Their history of growing government far exceeds that of Paul.

    7. Veronica says:

      “Dirty Hippy”? Are you 90 years old?

    8. Bag of Hammers says:

      You’re really smart. If we just build a thousand more prisons and round up every drug user and put them in jail for life then you will be safe. I’ll bet you take 3 or 4 different pharmaceuticals and you drink. The drug war has failed, your country is broke, deal with it.

    9. Tommy says:

      You are absolutely right. Great observation. Ron Paul is a liberal pink panty waist and it is not just his view on drug legalization but his views on many adult themed programs like the money supply, or govt required interventions like Iran, and gheys everywhere.

      Ron Paul wants you to be able to carry a gold bar, a file, and a scale with you everywhere you go so that you can shave off some gold for the guy you buy your gasoline from. Does that make any sense? No, but for decades Ron Paul advocated buying gold. Well? What good is gold unless it has buying power right, and what better way to prove it than to have to BUY something with it. The fraud convinced tens of thousands to buy gold bars and now what will they do with it? NOTHING. It was a waste of money.

      Iran. Ron Paul, the man who wears Depends, not that can be depended on, refuses to intervene in to Iran’s affairs claiming that they are no harm, and more like a long lost brother. The old goat is so confused. For ex. Yes, the USA intervened to give them leadership that we wanted, because as anyone can see, they are unfit to chose leadership that does not hate America and Western Mankind. It was NO MISTAKE. They are unfit to lead themselves to anywhere but annihilation and proof of that is, how close they are to it right now. But the old geezer Ron Paul wants to let them be to develop nuclear weapons….

    10. John says:

      Since alcohol is related to death through car accidents, bar fights, domestic violence, liver failure and brain damage, I hope you’re calling for alcohol to be made illegal.

      Otherwise you’re a hypocrite.

    11. Schwartzer says:

      You need to watch swindling the goyim on YT – genius!

    12. Pyrometman says:

      @ Tommy

      Stop Trolling.

      @ Everyone Else

      Stop Feeding the Troll.

    13. Tommy says:

      Ron Paul, the senile one speaks from the grave of the forgotten candidates. They aren’t done yet. His handlers, a mix of anti-Republican, far left peace-nik pot-headed liberal-Democrat, libertarians, will bathe him, throw his false teeth in, and put him in one of his his ill fitting suits, in a clean pair of Depends Undergarments, and send him back out to do battle to bring the Republican Party down. The man is a myth, his followers no better than a gang of Grateful Dead followers…squawking about their lack of access to drugs at a cheap price.

    14. Mike says: you and many here are the loons. You obviously are brainwashed by the NWO scheme. More people die because of prescription drugs every year compared to illegal ones. Including LEGALLY PRESCRIBED ones. You people who want pills go to the doctor to get pills, legal or not. We’re not just talking about overdoses either for deaths. What about all the people who have been killed by the side effects, often killing your kidneys or liver…. Even when legally prescribed.

      People should be free to do what they want to their body. it doesn’t hurt you so stop whining about it. Vitamins and Supplements are “drugs” and are about to be banned under the war on drugs. This is no hoax or lie. Why not google “Codex Alimentarius” Yup soon you will have no right to control what you can use for your heath. Codex is all about the ruling class’s eugenics programs, and is designed to depopulate, i.e. kill you and your kids and your families future.

      Why should we spend so much money on a “war” against drugs when it does nothing to help the problem. The problem is a social issue and not a government issue. If people supported the family platform not as many people would use drugs. Do you know what this country could do with all that money saved?

      Unfortunately some people are so brainwashed and asleep that they lack the ability to understand something so simple. I feel really sorry by those who are still under the NWO’s trance.

      They want you to take toxic prescription drugs that kill you in the name of eugenics. Illegal drugs are hard for them to control and make money off of them, or to use them for eugenics. But the ruling class tries anyway by bringing the drugs into the country to begin with.

      It’s on record and a truth that the CIA and our gov’t flies in the drugs. The money is laundered by the banksters. The drugs are sold by the little people on the street so that the “war on drugs” can arrest the users and small time dealers and lock them into a privately owned prison to use as slave labor, working for less than people in China. it’s quite a racket, and they don’t want to let go of it because it’s the only way they can have any control over it and make money from it.

    15. Andrew P. says:

      @Tommy: You’re a fool if you think investing in gold is a bad idea. When stocks crash, when homes are worthless, when people are out of jobs, and, heaven forbid, when the US Govt defaults on it’s debts (becoming more and more likely), gold will always be gold. Gold is scarce, and it’s that scarcity which makes it a good buy.

    16. Janet says:

      @Tommy and @nilo: I couldn’t have said it better myself. Ron Paul is a lunatic and a dangerous man. I’m not say that we have great candidates but Ron Paul gives me the creeps and I can’t imagine any woman allowing him to be her doctor. With freedom comes responsibility and illegal drug users have shown they can’t be responsible for the most part. Even if you make something legal, you still have addicts, inattentive parents, and poor decisions made while under the influence. If drug users were ONLY affecting themselves, it would be fine with me but there are ALWAYS victims.

      And I’m not a troll. I am a true conservative who believes in Biblical values and that some of our freedoms have bad consequences. Our children deserve to grow up in a home where it is DIFFICULT for their mom to get drugs. Do children growing up in addicted parent homes have freedom? No they don’t. They are living in hell.

      Americans are narcissists and Paulbots are the epitome of that.

    17. SpreadTheTruth says:

      Government trolls are running rampant here. Big brother has taken over the media and has 90% or more of the comments on all media sites creating the perception of public opinion.

      The 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.

    18. nuisance says:

      So you’re all for freedom so long as you dictate what others do. I’ve seen your type of hypocrisy before.

    19. Blackops says:

      Seriously… has RP ever said we should carry a gold bar with a file? srsly,,

      Its called a Gold Standard… Paper Money backed 100% by gold & Silver. the reason for this is quite simple… it limits the government from printing unlimited paper dollars to fund illigal wars world wide… all the while devaluing said dollar putting the middle class (over time) in poverity.
      Are you that ignorant that you cant see this? gold & Silver has been money for over 5 Thousand years… now the last 40 years we are just a paper fiat fake money system that is going to collapse… there is no question about it. in order to keep this ponzi scheme going it requires more and more debt to be created… it should be obvious to anyone with 1/2 a brain.
      Buying power… hows this for buying power… in 2007 i bought a Gold 1oz maple leaf for $730 dollars…. since then the government has printed im guess here… ruffly 5-8 trillion in new debt and devauling the currency. now my $730 1 oz coin is worth approx $1850… hows that for buying power?
      If you had of saved that $730 dollars it would now be worth less then $730 dollars as the money has been devalued and inflation has made items cost more… so just guesing here but that $730 dollars in 2012 would probably be $500 dollars worth of 2007 goods.

      They hate the US because we have been bombing the middle east for 10years… how would we feel if china were to come over here and start bombing us? think we wouldnt head over to china and start blowing up there stuff and threaten them? think again boozo!

    20. Blackops says:

      Tommy & Janet
      you clearly have ben drinking far to much FLORIDE and BISPHENOL A and probably washing it down with your yearly Flu Shot.

  45. kenh says:

    Fine, as long as President Paul immediately gets a bill passed that will absolutely guarantee that ALL resulting societal costs of his little “anything in my body that I want” experiment get passed on to the addicts family, not the taxpayer.

    Harsh? Yes, beware of getting what you ask for. But the families raised the little wild animals (even if they are technically adults by calendar age) You raised them, deal with them just like I do on a voluntary basis.

    And yes, I do know that society pays the cost now, but legalization would just increase the numbers. Could not possibly lower them.

    I just have to wonder what percentage of Ron Paul supporters are just druggies.

  46. aubreyfarmer says:

    Congratulation. You get today’s gold star for making the stupidest remark.

    1. NiceOne says:

      “Congratulation”, yourself. You say someone else’s remark is “stupid” then leave the “s” off “congratulations”. Brilliant.

  47. chet says:

    Stupid! What happens when millions of Drunk people can’t hold a job anymore? How do they pay for their Whiskey? Do they commit crimes or do we give them to them at our expense? How about housing, food, medical care etc? Is Dr. Paul willing to step over sick and dying Drunks in the street? What is the death toll from Booze already? What happens when Drunks drive cars and killing other people?

    Didn’t we try that before?

    1. mac says:

      The same thing that happens when the gov’ment says you are too old to work and they replace you with a younger person. Or the gov’ment decide you don’t have the skills to do your job anymore and replaces you with someone else that just got out of college and (they think) has those skills to replace you!
      Do you get it yet? The gov’ment, the gov’ment is going to be running your life for the rest of your life. The gov’ment is going to be telling your kids what they can and cannot do in the future, what job they can do and not do, regardless of their education or talents., and on and on and on… do you get it yet?
      Are you just waiting for the gov’ment to tell you what you can and cannot do? sounds like it! Please don’t pick and choose the words you want to, out of what RP says, try reading complete paragraphs and more to get the real jest of what RP says. Face it, he is really the only candidate (D or R) that has a solid background and that says what he does and does what he says! Best of luck to you in the future!

  48. Fred n Boise says:

    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.
    Jay Leno and David Letterman would not glorify drug use.
    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.

    1. TM says:

      I’m with ya, Fred.

  49. Klaus says:

    Narcotics addiction didn’t cost Rush Limbaugh his job. He was high for how many years on the show without his audience realizing it? He took so much narcotics, he became deaf from the side effects.

  50. James says:

    Dirty Hippie. Why is this guy running republican? I mean do we really need more brain dead druggies running around this country?

    If he wants to go the “why can’t we put into our body whatever we want”, next thing you know all the women of this country are gonna be shoving things in their body not caring who they hurt in the process…. OH WAIT, women already do this…

    Oh well, stupid dirty hippies.

    1. Klaus says:

      Why is he running Republican? Because he’s the only candidate who proposes cutting $1 trillion from the budget in year 1 and eliminating the IRS (replacing it with nothing). I thought the Republican party was for cutting spending and taxes, but other than Ron Paul, the party has been nothing but hot air for decades.

      1. Fred in Boise says:

        Call me risk adverse.

        Love Ron Paul on economics.

        Think he doesn’t consider obvious, potentially disastrous effects of his preferred social and international (well, ok, only half of his international) ideas.

        Obama is a radical hypocrite. The Republicans are all status quo schmucks–but at least at present things could still get worse so maybe we can wait for someone more balanced by Ron Paul before we start to really torque things in WA. Just get rid of Obama NOW.

      2. Klaus says:

        Fred in Boise, I do not understand your fear of Ron Paul. On social issues, he proposes the same freedoms the Founding Fathers gave us as an inheritance that we let crooked politicians take away. On international issues, he proposes an end to the isolationism we currently have with Cuba, North Korea, and Iran.

  51. Mememe says:

    Ranting about the war on drugs two days after another celebrity died of overdose.

    Really smart.

    Ron Paul would be worse than Obama.

    1. Steven Goodwin says:

      From the FBI death statistics:

      TOBACCO – 340,000 to 450,000

      ALCOHOL (Not including all alcohol related highway deaths & murders) – 150,000+

      ASPIRIN (Including deliberate overdose) – 180 to 1,000+

      CAFFEINE (From stress, ulcers, and triggering irregular heartbeats, etc) – 1,000 to 10,000

      “LEGAL” DRUG OVERDOSE from legal, prescribed, patent medicines, and/or mixing with alcohol – e.g. Valium/alcohol (deliberate or accidental) – 14,000 to 27,000

      ILLICIT DRUG OVERDOSE from all illegal drugs (deliberate or accidental) – 3,800 to 5,200


    2. Klaus says:

      Whitney Houston, Michael Jackson, Elvis Presley, and Marilyn Monroe all died from prescription drugs, not illegal drugs. Prescription drugs cause more deaths and organ damage in America every year than illegal drugs.

      1. Dave says:

        Great point. . .legalized drugs are killing thousands already. . .let’s legailize more drugs

  52. Steven Goodwin says:

    I am VERY pro-drug.
    Not because I use drugs, which I don’t, I am pro drug because I believe that what an ADULT chooses to do to his/her body/mind in the privacy of their own home is a decision that should be made by that person, NOT the Government. And please don’t try to tell me that drugs are a ‘public health’ issue, if it were then alcohol and tobacco would be outlawed as well. They do FAR more damage annually than ALL of the illegal drugs combined…..
    Tobacco related deaths: 400K+
    Alcohol related deaths: 17K+
    Automobile related deaths: 40K+
    Marijuana related deaths: 0, due to the drug itself, turf wars are another story.
    And before you say that you’re afraid of all the people running around in public, stoned out on pot and that they are a danger because they are ‘high’…… consider how many are out running around all stoned out on Prozac, Xanax, etc.
    I could go on forever about this one….. but that’s just my $.02

  53. Ty says:

    Why would they need to pay for drugs when they can grow their own.
    Where have all the druggies from the 60’s gone? Oh that’s right they are a lot of peoples parents now who are mostly upstanding members of society.
    The drug war is not working now nor has it ever.
    The U.S. Government loves the war on drugs because it makes crazy amounts of money off of it.
    Ask yourself why they have not napalmed the poppy fields in Afghanistan if they abhor drugs so much. They could have easily gave the farmers grain seeds to grow but instead let the farmers keep growing poppy, and now they are growing more of it than they ever have.

  54. Diogenes says:

    If federal laws against drugs are removed, state laws will still apply. How many people do you know who will run out and start using drugs just because the federal laws are gone without changes in state laws? Did you know that the repeal of the prohibition on alcohol resulted in reduced rates of drinking?

    The main effect of dropping federal drug laws would be that the federal government would stop interfering with states’ medical marijuana laws. As a physician, Ron Paul resents the government telling him he cannot prescribe a natural plant that has been used medicinally for thousands of years.

  55. Truth Betold says:

    So what happened to all the drug addicted people who couldn’t hold a job anymore prior to the late 1930’s when the drugs were made illegal. All of history prior to that all the drugs were legal.

    Brush away the hype! None of the drugs are new, and some of the combinations have been used for centuries. I have an old Bayer brand methamphetamine bottle in my patent medicine bottle collection, and most patent medicines were 40% opiates of various kinds. Cocaine wine, coca-cola, PEPsi, these drugs were proliferous, and many of them safer. Opiates are way safer than tylenol, Ibuprofen, or any of the other NSAIODS, including asperin.

    Look up patent medicine bottles on a google image search and see what you come up with. You’ll be shocked.

    What’s far worse than what the drugs and stupid people do, is what we as a society do to those that use them. We shoot them, imprison them, break up families, and turn the trade over to gangsters and thugs, just like during prohibition when organized crime grew to massive proportions still overwhelmingly present today.

    Take the trade out of the hands of criminals and it can be regulated, taxed, and real information can be proliferated, rather than BS to provide cover for the 1/4 trillion dollar drug war waged on our own people.

  56. Mememe says:

    I an time when Obamacare is crippling America and our pockets. This goon cares about the “war on drugs”.

    Ron Paul is a complete loon.

    1. aubreyfarmer says:

      Is this freedom? You don’t like it so you want to stop everyone else from doing it. Either you believe in individual freedom and personal responsibility or you don’t. When something you like to do is outlawed, then how will you feel? On the pretext of saving us from ourselves they in their wisdom will readily trod the liberties of others under foot. Useful idiots helping the demagogues and tyrants fulfill their objective of control.

  57. Jack says:

    In English Common Law and our Constitution it was always understood that two things must be present for a crime to have occured. A victim and a perpetrator. I cannot steal from myself, I cannot assault myself because the perpetrator and victim cannot be one and the same.

    If I take a drug or any other substance into my own body, who is harmed? Even if I am harmed which is debateable, I cannot be both victim and perpetrator.

  58. TM says:

    So, let me get this straight. Ron Paul says we should have the right to put into our bodies anything we want. Hmmm…so I decide I want to use PCP this morning, then go for a drive down the freeway during rush hour. If I actually survive the trip on the freeway without killing a bunch of people, I think I’ll visit my office, get freaked out by a coworker and start smashing heads as I become more and more violent. If I manage to escape, I’ll head over to the mall where the lighting will likely freak me out and I’ll become violent and start attacking people with whatever I can lay my hands on. Let’s hope that by then I’ll have been tased by the cops and hauled off to prison.

    Does the good Dr. ever think through what he’s saying? I suspect not…

    1. Fischball says:

      Hmmm…. so you decide… Great decision maker you are. So everyone is just like you? You can make up any scenario you want. I could club a co-worker with a chair today. Who can stop me from that decision?

  59. mcfloyd says:

    That’s what she said!

  60. Beerman309 says:

    Scientifically proven facts show the legalization does not lead to more addicts but in fact gives people a chance to get off the drugs or control them. There is a season of “The Wire” that you really need to see to put things into perspective. Even if it did create more addict who the hell are you to decide what person should put into his own body? And no I do not do drugs. I brew my own beer and have a few on the weekend.

  61. netshark says:

    If Paul wasnt a foreign policy loon, I’d support him.

    1. ian says:

      Foreign policy loon? Seriously?
      Somehow the media has brainwashed Americans into believing that invading/occupying foreign countries, while disregarding their Constitutions, and rule of law, while killing scores of civilians is a ‘strong foreign policy’. Not to mention spreading our military thin throughout the world and leaving our borders wide open.
      I think what we consider a strong foreign policy is a bit skewed. If you think starting unConstitutional wars, and killing MILLIONS of innocent people abroad is a strong foreign policy/defense…well our definition of a strong foreign policy differs.
      The terrorist/civilian kill ratio is ~1:10 That is for every ‘terrorist’ killed 10 innocent civilians (children, women, men) die. This begs the question; How many terrorists have we just created? We could never end this war without genocide.

      1. Blake Prouty says:

        well said Ian.. sheep, remember to try and think for yourselves now. One step at a time, you can do this!!

      2. Fischball says:

        Very well said. And factual without calling someone a loon, a goon, or a whacko.

  62. Bob Constantine says:

    According to U.S. surgeon generals reports the leading cause of death from a substance is tobacco, followed by alcohol, pharmaceutical drugs, and even Caffeine overdoses kill thousands. Cannabis (Marijuana) rates the lowest…ZERO deaths. Your argument is based in emotion and inaccuracy.

    Some would argue the most addictive “substance” is unchecked power over others…it seems very addictive, no?

    The argument of who owns our bodies is a valid one.

  63. Anonie_moss says:

    What exactly is different between alcohol and drugs again? Is alcohol not a drug? Do we not have alcoholics now? Is alcoholism a medical or legal issue?

    I cannot follow your logic? Please explain what the difference is?
    While your at it please tell me what the outcome of alcohol prohibition was?

    There is no difference between the drug of alcohol and “illegal” drugs.

  64. Mr. Truth says:

    I had to fire two guys recently for popping on a random drug test. All they needed to do was fuel an aircraft incorrectly while under the influence, and hundreds of people would die. Cash is right. You others decrying him are likely the low-lifes that I’d fire to protect the people we serve.

    1. Ty says:

      Guess what Dr. Paul would probably agree with private employers giving drug tests as a condition of employment.
      He is for getting the Government out of your life, but Dr. Paul is for letting private employers decide how to run a business which would include random drug tests if they so decide.
      So you disagree with Dr. Paul why? It would not be any different with decriminalization than what you already have. You would still be able to get rid of anyone you want under Dr. Paul.

  65. AndrewSuber says:

    Your argument assumes that what we are doing now is working. In my opinion, it is clear that drug addiction and drunkeness are at an all time high despite draconian laws, ineffectual 12 step programs, military intervention with Mexican cartels and stiff federal sentences.

    The War on Drugs has failed. Period.

  66. BGko says:

    The government allows us to fill our bodies with chemically and hormonally “enhanced” foods that cause cancer and genetically modified foods, in fact its near unavoidable. Death-dealing cigarettes and alcohol are legal, and yet we can’t recreational drugs are where they draw the line? I guess we can only use the drugs that they and they’re Big Pharma and Corporate Food buddies can make money on, and then they have the audacity to tell us they care about our health

  67. ian says:

    Didn’t a CIA Guantanamo jet plane crash a few years ago with 4 TONS of cocaine? Maybe you should google it along with CIA drug trafficking.

    Look people. Our government trafficking drugs is a BUSINESS. Just like the wars.

  68. Bill says:

    He’s obviously talking about marijuana.

  69. Yirmin Snipe says:

    I’m all for allowing people to do all the drugs they want, but I do have one condition…the person that decides to use drugs forfeits any and all welfare including unemployment when they find themselves without a job.

    Actions have consequences and if they want to drink acid like its beer, I don’t care. But I don’t want to have to waste one dime of tax dollars to help the idiot that goes over board.

    1. E says:

      unemployment is paid for by taxes on people who work Mr. smarty pants.
      Welfare isn’t ‘earned’ an unemployment check is

      I do agree about welfare, but i would pose the added condition that I don’t want to pay for booze, or restaurant food with my welfare dollars.

    2. Mike Stahl says:

      What if they drink beer like its beer? Same rules should apply right? Alcohol is, frankly, more powerful that most illegal drugs, and certainly is a contributing factor in far more personal disasters.

      Personally, I’d be for eliminating Welfare totally, including the welfare that goes to the EMPLOYERS in this country-though honestly the assistance that goes primarily to single mothers is such a small portion of the nat’l budget that it hardly bears discussion in light of the breathtaking spending government is doing in other areas. . Unemployment is not Welfare, it is insurance, that while mandated, is paid for by employers, not tax dollars-in other words, its none of your d$%^ business-if you want to have an opinion that others take seriously, learn what it is you are talking about.

    3. Phil says:

      Ironically, I can almost guarantee you that more people die every year from drinking beer than drinking acid.

    4. BJ says:

      I’ll go a step further.

      You want to use illegal drugs fine. However, penalties for crimes committed while under the influence are automatically doubled. The moment you harm anyone else while being doped up you’ve now infringed on someone else’s life.

      Paul and everyone else wants to make this about personal responsibility – fine. I completely agree. I will gladly legalize anything so long as people are willing to face the consequences for abusing their privileges.

    5. Dave says:

      Yirmin, fine, as long as I don’t have to contribute to social security 😛

    6. Jeff says:

      Hey BJ, since you don’t include an statistics to back up your nonsense I’ll include some for you.

      About 40% of all traffic fatalities are alcohol related.
      About 36% of all prisoners were drinking at the time of the offense.
      About 62% of those on probation were drinking at the time of the last offense.
      Among the 11 million victims of violence in a recent year, 2.2 million said that the offender was under the influence of alcohol, while only .6 million were under the influence of drugs.
      Among victims of domestic violence, alcohol played a role in 55% of the cases, while drugs played a role in only 9% of the cases; for spousal violence, alcohol was a factor in 65% of the cases, versus only 5% for drugs.
      Among all victims of violence, the alcohol played a role in 28% of the cases, compared to only 7% for drugs.
      For rapes, alcohol was a factor in 30% of the cases; drugs were a factor in only 4%.
      In just over 40% of all homicide cases, alcohol was a factor.

      An estimated 450,000 died because of tobacco in the year 2000. Another 85,000 died because of alcohol, compared to just 17,000 deaths from the use of illegal drugs; 32,000 died from adverse reactions to prescription drugs; none died from using marijuana. What does this tell us? Obviously the most deadly drugs (tobacco, alcohol and prescription drugs) are perfectly legal, which the least deadly are illegal. You can draw your own conclusion about why this is the case.

  70. Lakeuwood says:

    Life is about choices, what makes some of these people believe that they can make decisions for others is arrogant. I am adopted, I am pro-life, but that does not mean that I should force my decision on others, so in a broader sense I am pro-choice. If people are educated and see the consequences of their actions I would believe they will make better decisions. Politicians who believe that they should enforce their views on others in un-american, but has become the norm.

  71. Mr. Reality says:

    Hey Ron, why don’t you keep quiet for a while. Thanks, pal.

    1. ian says:

      Why would you want to silence someone who makes complete sense? Oh, you must work with corporate.

    2. Fischball says:

      Your comment would suggest you’re listening. Nice try.

  72. Dave says:

    I hope he has “cost effective socialized health care” (funny) to go along with that “Why can’t we put into our body whatever we want?” ideology. Who’s going to pay for the result of that? They die on the streets? Fine with me, but I’m heartless when it comes to paying for personal self destruction.

  73. gold says:

    You assume that all of a sudden people would be able to get drugs they couldn’t get before. The fact is that due to the black market which is proven prohibition doesn’t work, that drugs are just as available now as they will ever be. People commit crimes now to get drugs but we capture and prosecute them for the drugs not the crimes, I know I am a police officer. This is a side effect of the prohibition. Ugh, people use drugs and drive cars now, people drive after drinking alcohol, people drive after not getting enough sleep. Look at the effect it had in Portugal, when they legalized drugs their population use dropped dramatically, especially in use by youth.

  74. Scott says:

    You obviously do not realize that at one time in America ALL illegal drugs where legal and we didn’t have dieing addicts in the the streets. Making something illegal does NOTHING to the addicts. Do you really need the government to tell you that drugs are bad? Do you really need the government telling you what is right and wrong? Get a clue! Open your eyes!

  75. Sleuth51 says:

    Voters who want wars, torture, assassinations, “humanitarian” bombings in oil rich countries, indefinite detentions, drone attacks that kill the innocent, erosion of civil liberties, domestic war on the people (drug war), out-of-control debt and spending, graft and greed, crony capitalism, pandering to special interests, bailouts, more of the same, must NOT vote for Ron Paul.

    Voters who want peace, a humane foreign policy, restoration of civil liberties, an end to the war on drugs, sound money, balanced budgets, honesty, integrity and transparency in government, and a President wholly committed to Constitutional government can vote for Ron Paul.

    Ain’t that difficult a choice.

    The war on drugs is a war on the people, particularly on poor communities of color. People are being incarcerated for victimless crimes.

    1. sunofzion says:

      That is fine we can put in our bodies whatever we want. But we should then not be able to refer to any safety net for being irresponsible. That is my point personal responsibility…

    2. Destined says:

      “The war on drugs is a war on the people, particularly on poor communities of color.”

      Why is that? do people ‘of color’ choose to take more illicit drugs than white people? if so how do you feel about that?

      1. Sleuth51 says:

        Because law enforcement targets low income areas. They generally stay away from high-income suburbs. Judges and prosecutors don’t want to see the children of their political donors in court on drug charges.

  76. derk_e-Der says:

    We can! !@#$ the District of Criminals!!! Just ignore these BS so-called laws. And when they come for you let, let ’em have it. If we all take this stance, they will wilt like a turd in the desert.

  77. Laxon Laxoff says:

    Holland has successfully taxed and restricted drug useage to a few areas.
    In Holland, with easy access to drugs, most drug users are not Dutch, but Brits and Americans that go over there.

    America’s war on drugs is a bust. Drugs are still finding their way into drug using Americans and costing lives on both sides.
    It’s not going to stop either and we’re not going to win the war on drugs. It’s evident. People that use drugs and alcohol are going to use drugs and alcohol.

    With easy access and sever penalties (like with alcohol comsumption/driving), Americans are going to be more wary of the consequences…or pay big time.

    If we believe in freedom, then we should have choices. We’re losing those choices under the guise of “safety for all” and we’d better wake up fast or we’ll be a police state. Look at the campaigns for cigarettes, the rights of bar/restaurant owners to choose whether to allow smoking in their establishments (if you don’t like it, go somewhere else — you have that freedome still).

    So, legalize the illegal drugs (they already are by lobbying Pharmaceutical companies), regulate them and tax them.

  78. GuyIncognito says:

    Support for alcohol and tobacco prohibition should be a requisite for criticizing Ron Paul’s stance on this.

    If you decry the legalization of pot as the machination of a loony hippie or whatever, you sure better decry the legalization of alcohol and nicotine as the same.

    If you don’t, all that tells me is that the hostile reaction to legalization advocates is more gut than brain.

  79. Ziggy Supers says:

    Ron Paul represents a movement toward the Constitutional State and Personal Liberty and Responsibility. In watching the run up to this election it becomes clear that the USA as a whole is finished. Let us look ahead to how it will be divided up. My suggestion is to designate States most willing to fight for the principles represented by Paul as ‘Constitution States’. The top considerations might easily come from We get their commitment, vote with our feet , fight like hell to maintain a stance against federal intrusion, and eventually secede, allowing the ‘Gimmies’ to sink or swim on their own.

  80. LoL says:

    The war on drugs isn’t preventing anything. Anyone who wants drugs can and will get them. There is not a single drug addict who cannot get the drugs they desire.

    As far as committing crimes, look at the system now. The current system perpetuates more crime through invisible sentencing. People are getting put in prison for non-violent offences such as marijuana possession. Once convicted, no employer will hire them, and they are forced into real crime to survive.
    There is also the fact that black market drugs are more dangerous and addictive and keep murderous drug cartels in business.

    The result of the war on drugs: trillions of dollars, thousands of lives, not a single drug addict prevented from getting drugs, and the government telling you what you can do with you own body

  81. rae ekaf says:

    I have no hankering to any kind of drug, but I agree with Dr. Paul’s logic as opposed the all-powerful state’s position.

  82. Jason says:

    Are you and your family going to start using drugs if it were legalized tomorrow? No

    What makes you think that the majority of people would be any different?

    Also, this article describes Paul’s philosophy. His official federal position would be to let the states regulate drugs as they see fit.

  83. Fritz says:

    Let’s not forget (besides the glaring fact that drug prohibition merely allows some of the worst people to get rich quickly and easily) that when the Constitution was ratified, there were drugs and abortion! Yet somehow the founding fathers, in their infinite wisdom, chose NOT to criminalize either one.

    Let’s also not forget the fact that drug laws waste law enforcement resources that could be better spent catching thieves, murderers, and rapists.

    Reason has a lot of good articles on the drug war.

  84. Ynofreedrugs says:

    We should let Michael Jackson and Whitney Houston answer the question why we shouldn’t be able to put what we want in our bodies…Hey Mike what do you say? …speak up, Whitney do you have anything to say…kind of quiet out there… Bueller, Bueller?

    1. Mike says:

      Ynofreedrugs, Michael or Whitney dying doesn’t affect you. It has nothing to do with this. Saying what you say is the same as saying the gov’t has the right to decide to live or die. You should have the freedom to destroy yourself if wanted. The government has no idea what is best for you and neither does anyone else. Only YOU know what’s best for you, and gov’t control over that takes away your freedoms. Why in the hell should the gov’t have the ability to decide things FOR YOU rather than you decide for yourself. Smart people research things before they make decisions and don’t need the gov’t to tell them what’s up.

      1. Ynofreedrugs says:

        Why has government been instituted at all? Because the passions of men will not conform to the dictates of reason and justice, without constraint (Alexander Hamilton). I’d love a world that doesn’t need government, but that ain’t human nature. Neither of us need one of our educated and highly enlightened countrymen plowing into or cars cause they took the drugs their body wanted before they began driving on the highway. We have the government we have now due to the plethora of smart people (sarcasim light on bright and steady)

  85. Bourgeois says:

    Earth to Paulbots: God did not meet Moses on Mt. Sinai and write libertarianism. Because it is an invention of man, IT HAS FLAWS. If you live in RP’s fantasy world, you could tell yourself that what you do to yourself only hurts you. In the real world, drug abuse not only destroys the user, it utterly devastates everyone around them, along with burdening society. Ron Paul is an idiot, who either knows not whereof he speaks, or is so devoted to his flawed ideology that he just doesn’t care.

    1. ian says:

      So clearly we must keep drugs illegal so government can run the monopoly. Seriously how dumbed down you have become. Ever google CIA drug trafficking? What has happened to common sense in this country?

      Remember the Prohibition? Apparently it is ok with you that Big Pharma sells narcotics and that the legal drugs out kill the illegal drugs by 3:1. You have just woken up to the Corporatocracy. WAKE UP.

      Where has that common sense gone?

    2. Lakeuwood says:

      Bourgeois, it is you that is the idiot. Get educated so that you can properly respond to an article. Ron Paul believes that people are smart enough to make their own decisions. If you want others to make all your decisions for you please move to China and let me know how that works out for you.

    3. Mike says:

      Bourgeois: “In the real world, drug abuse not only destroys the user, it utterly devastates everyone around them, along with burdening society.”

      If I were to decide to become a crack head, how will it affect you or people around me. It wouldn’t. You’re naive and filled with misinformation. RP believes you should be responsible for anything you do. If you destroy yourself with crack, it only affects the people around them if those people choose to let it do so.

    4. mqg25 says:

      Earth to the Corporate Status Bots: When God met Moses on Mt. Sinai he gave him 10 rules for us to live by. The golden rule was treat your neighbor as you would like to be treated. Your fantasy world allows an all powerful government entity to decide for us what is good and what is is bad for us, where God’s rule says that as long as we are not hurting anybody else it is our CHOICE, GOOD OR BAD…WE FACE THE CONSEQUENCES FOR OUR ACTIONS. BTW…according to your arguement that libertarianism is an invention of man…does that mean you prefer to live under a theocractic government?

  86. TM smack downer says:

    TM, If someone is driven to do something they wouldnt normally do, they were still driven to do it. LOL your argument is garbage. fail

  87. yeahyo says:

    Not very bright are you? You seem like another product of the reefer madness era who claims the sky is falling. Where’s the proof of your claims? You speak as if personal slavery to the state is what makes a good little sheeple. Go crawl back under your rock while the adults talk.

  88. mongo megawatt says:

    When people take responsibility for their own choices, they usually don’t make too many bad choices. The reason you’ve seen the carnage from drug use is that people DON’T take responsibility for their actions. There’s always someone (read gummint) stepping in and taking the reins. And, the reason drugs are expensive is BECAUSE they’re illegal. Do you really think someone would pay $60 for a quarter ounce of a plant they could grow for free???? As for the crime aspect or the driving aspect, nobody’s advocating that. In fact there are plenty of laws on the books to address exactly those concerns.
    With that being said, if you don’t want to, then don’t. But don’t shove your preconceived and misguided ideas about what’s best for everyone else down their throats.

  89. TJP says:

    I’ll support that position if anyone OD’ing without insurance is left to die. Otherwise, the taxpayer is being stuck with the bill for someone else’s “free choice”. Why is it you get to “choose” to put drugs into your body, then everyone else has to cover for you when something goes wrong? Given, the same is true of alcohol, cigarettes, sugary and salty foods, etc. Overeating yourself to 400 pounds is bad for your health as well, and we shouldn’t be footing that bill either. I’m an equal-opportunity sort of person, I believe in making people responsible for their actions across the entire spectrum, not just drugs.

    1. Destined says:

      Why is it you get to ‘choose’ to go rock climbing, work as a cop, eat too much food, drink to much liquor, drive too fast, drive for a living increasing risk of you being exposed to an accident, go surfing and get lost, go hiking and get lost, and ‘we’ have to foot the bill?

      Why do I have to call you a ‘hero’ when you ‘choose’ to sign up to go and kill afghan villagers for bush obama wars of lies?

  90. John says:

    Liberals unable to remain accountable for their decisions through life. The blame is put on Dr. Phil for stepping over mentally disordered liberal drug addicts in the street. A liberal who can’t afford a mortgage payment should be given a new house? A liberal who can’t urinate in a cup to have a job with provided medicate, should have someone else who can, pay for their health care? Liberalism is a mental disorder. The world is upside down.

  91. AuntieTaqiyya says:

    But Ron, there’s a caveat here: As you are free to put into your body whatever you wish, you are also responsible for the results of your actions. Ergo, any medical, financial, or criminal ramifications of your actions ARE YOUR RESPONSIBILITY, AND YOURS ALONE! Any costs incurred from the deliterious affects of your personal choice to ingest/use drugs is yours to bear. No local, state or federal funds may be used for: your medical care (medicade, medicare, etc.); no taxpayer-funded financial support (welfare, SSI, AFDC, etc.); or any costs of your incarceration, due to theft, violence, or other such acts committed while under the influence…With freedom comes responsibility!

    1. Destined says:

      Hahaha cost of incarceration, you fool. I suppose every criminal should be liable for the ‘costs of their incarceration’, not just drug criminals, you’re an idiot.

      Rock climbing, choosing to work in law enforcement and getting shot, getting lost hiking, having a car accident from failing to replace your tires regularly, choosing to drive on an icy day, choosing to live next to a highway with fumes to breathe, choosing to go hang gliding, all of these people are wretched people according to you who should be dumped outside the emergency room door and denied treatment, because after all ‘it was their choice’ to take the risks.

      Eat my round and brown behind you fool.

      1. AuntieTaqiyya says:

        Kudos to you, my swarthy friend! Now you’ve taken off your dunce-cap, and put on your thinking-cap! Absolutely…everyone is ultimately responsible for their choices. If you choose to engage in “extreme sports”, then of course you will be responsible for paying for higher insurance premiums (or no insurance coverage, after your various accidents have proven you to be a liability.) As to your inference that “…all these people are wretched people according to you who should be dumped outside the emergency room door and denied treatment…” [lord have mercy, those are YOUR poorly placed words and atrocious grammar]. Your point is? No emergency room should be saddled with bearing the cost of medical care for the poor, voluntary choices of non-paying patients…EVER! Now, re. your unintelligable sign off of “Eat my round and brown behind you fool.” Based on your poor punctuation, I can only infer that either you wish to self-cannibalize your corpulent, swarthy anus; or, you wish to consume your own feces behind yourself…Go at it Sweetie. Afterall, it’s your choice….

    2. Justin T says:

      And then why aren’t you advocating we criminalize the use of alcohol? Please explain to me why you aren’t championing prohibition?

      Alcohol is America’s #1 legalized drug, far more detrimental than marijuana, yet we’re still here and society survives on.

      These idiots, so terrified, so fearful, BEGGING for a police state to protect them, how can you stand living in a country where ALCOHOL IS LEGAL?!?! HOW DO YOU HANDLE IT?!?! WHY AREN’T YOU MORONS FIGHTING TO BAN IT?

  92. Tom C says:

    Those people will abuse already do abuse and already commit crime.

  93. RON PAUL OR ELSE says:

    Exactly Kieth, in addition cash, Prohibition INCREASED alcoholism and gave birth to the mob. The war on drugs is a complete failure and waste of money, especially considering that the US government is importing the majority of the drugs and the US troops are guarding the Opium fields in Afghanistan.

  94. Dan Peterson says:

    RON PAUL 2012!

    1. NiceOne says:

      2012? I knew he was old but I had no idea he was that ancient!

  95. J. Grant says:

    Remember: Ron Paul is all for the sovereignty of the body, and believes you can do any drugs you want… unless you’re a woman taking an abortion pill, in which case, you should not have that option. Silly pregnant women, that blastocyst deserves the rights and protections of an actual human being.

    1. Destined says:

      No, Ron Paul believes that you, the former ‘blastocyst’ are glad you were not aborted. He understands that a pregnant woman is TWO human lives.

      1. J. Grant says:

        A blastocyst is not a human life, any more than an acorn is a tree. Ron Paul is a hypocrite, and a terrifying one at that.

  96. Sierra says:

    Laws don’t stop people from using drugs, their morals do, their parents influence on their raising does etc. Your statements are what’s already happening. Decriminalizing drugs would mean that drug addicts would get HELP instead of being thrown into prison. Without being scared of being locked up people would seek help. Ever notice how rich people go to rehab and poor people go to jail? Why do we think that a policy that hasn’t worked for 30 years will eventually start working? Portugal, they decriminalized drugs and their crime numbers and their deaths from drugs have gone down significantly
    According to Salon’s Glenn Greenwald, who is fluent in Portuguese and spent months in Portugal studying the effects of decriminalization, several things have happened since 2001:
    Drug use among teens has declined
    Rates of HIV infection from using dirty needles has been cut by 17%
    Portugal has had the lowest rate in Europe of lifetime marijuana use for people over 15
    Deaths resulting from heroin and similar “hard” drugs have been cut in half
    Drug-related crime and violence has been down
    There’s been a massive increase in the number of people seeking drug treatment

    1. Shawn Sha says:

      Non-sense , cops stop people from using illicit drugs when individuals morals fail them….

      ALL people whose morals didnt fail them have their rights, liberty and life effected by the drug user. That is where Ron Paul and his idiot neolibertarisnims fails.
      In a free society for ALL , everyone’s rights are protected from all other citizens.and the government the authority to make that so
      Drug users are not the only one with rights.

      1. Steve says:

        Wouldn’t the crime be the actual act that effects your rights, liberty and life?

      2. John Busciglio says:

        cops don’t stop anyone from doing anything. they are simply their to clean up the mess and extract as much money as they can from it in the process.

        There is nothing special about law enforcement personnel that prevents people from doing whatever the heck they want to do.

        Every once in a while, a cop is in the right place at the right time to prevent injury or loss. That is a deviation from the norm.

        Here is an idea that would fit in to your view. Why not assign every citizen in this country 3 personal law enforcement officers for every man woman and child in this country. That way, they can have 24/7 surveillance in 3 8 hour shifts to make sure that the person they are assigned does not break any law?

        Each person would be taxed enough from their job to pay the salary of the 3 law enforcement officers assigned to them, and since we are smart enough to know that would be a 100% tax and still fall short of paying those salaries, we can just have the treasury borrow some more money from somewhere and ask the Fed Reserve to print up some more to hand out to people to pay for law enforcement.

        This way, everyone would have a job. We would be totally safe, and there would be no need to pay for our criminal justice system since there would be no criminals.

        OR we could allow people to go about their lives and respond to incidents of violence and loss in the same way we would do if those things occurred to an individual who was not on drugs.

        Yes, you have rights shawn, but that right doesn’t include telling me what I can put in to my mouth. And if you don’t have that right, than neither do cops or politicians.

      3. Jon Watts says:

        That was really good John!

  97. dave says:

    The Partnership for a Drugfree America was originally, primarily funded by Phillip Morris, RJ Reynolds, Anheuser-Busch, Bristol Meyers-Squibb and Merck & Company. JUST SAYIN’

  98. Epstein's Mother says:

    @Mr. Truth, I take it you test for drugs but don’t really care about alcohol abuse? Because alcohol is legal, right? Or is it that you care about both, even though the latter is perfectly legal?

    And if that’s the case, doesn’t that completely undermine your point?

    Frankly, you sound like you one of the idiots I fire for not being able to solve a logic test.

  99. Fischball says:

    Drugs are illegal so it’s not a problem right now, right? Are you a new drug addict? Why not? Access is is fairly easy. Is it because you don’t CHOOSE to be an addict? How about letting other people decide as well instead of doing it for them. Think it through. Alcohol is available and there are alcoholics and others who are not.

  100. Eddie Thinking says:

    The reality is that alcohol is the worst of all the drugs:
    Why is it legal, or we legalize all or let’s give freedom a chance . . .

  101. Dave Hardesty says:

    I have no problem allowing people to put what they wish into their bodies. That is their right and who am I to judge them? That’s God’s authority, not mine.

    But I do have a BIG problem when people extend their rights and place them upon someone else who either can’t protect themselves, rob others of their right to life because their activities have a direct and negative impact on them (drunk drivers) are incapable of making the INFORMED decision for themselves (like children), cause themselves and those around them no end of problems because of their drug use (medically and civilly) and then lean on their God given rights to destroy themselves.

    If you want to drink and use drugs, it’s fine by me. Have a blast. But when you start to affect the rights of others to live in peace and health, or destroy your own body and expect medical treatment to bail you out for your poor decision to live your life with drugs, DON’T expect me to have sympathy and pay the cost for you.

    Once I actually supported Ron Paul’s outlook on things but as of the last five years I have come to believe he is a Crackpot that needs to be avoided at all costs. If he cannot understand why things like this should not be placed into our bodies then he should have his physician’s license revoked.

    And I can’t believe I am about to type this but better Obama be re-elected to the presidency than a crackpot like Ron Paul. At least we know Obama is consistently inconsistent as Ron mindlessly wanders all over the political spectrum spouting maniacal things like this.

    And before you comment back to me, I don’t like any of the current candidates running for office AND I am not a Tea Party member or an Occupy person either. Just a simple citizen voter that has become disgusted at what I see in our political system not only at the Federal but at the State level as well.

    1. Justin T says:

      I feel sorry for you. Your parents plopped you front of the TV when you were a kid and your brain didn’t develop right. It’s not your fault.

      I know you probably can’t comprehend it, but if you haven’t noticed, the Drug War isn’t winning or working. Guess what? People are still using drugs! I know! Really!

      I also don’t know if you’re aware, but there are ALREADY LAWS IN PLACE to deal with whatever detrimental effects drug use might have on society. Laws are ALREADY on the books. I’m sorry, but the police state you envision won’t fix or solve anything. I’m sure the “pre-crime” vision in Speilburg’s “Minority Report” is a wet dream of yours, but ain’t gonna happen any time soon. In the meantime, you’ll have to somehow survive in a world full of UNCERTAINTY.

      We also might do a lot to solve the issue by re-directing the funds WASTED on imprisoning non-violent drug users into REHAB programs. What a concept, eh?

      Please look at the success in Portugal — a country that completely decriminalized drugs (and yes, a country with a history of massive drug abuse).

      Please inform yourself and stop being a Willful Idiot. It’s NOT the government’s business or job to tell us what we do with OUR bodies, notwithstanding your fear-based idiocy.

  102. Markangelo says:

    But he is against abortion ????????????????

    1. Tommy says:

      NO!!!! He is NOT against abortion. He is for YOU doing whatever you want to do with your body that you want. He is a LIBertarian, as in LIBERAL.

    2. David Wooten says:

      Yes. Paul is for individual Rights including the rights of the unborn. I don’t agree that a fetus in the early stages of pregnancy constitutes a human life but I support Dr. Paul (who has delivered 4000+ babies).

    3. David Wooten says:

      “He is a LIBertarian, as in LIBERAL.”

      The word ‘liberal’ originally meant the same thing as ‘libertarian’ does today. But when the word ‘liberal’ was respected, it was stolen by socialists – who do not believe in private property rights as do libertarians.

    4. factcheck.u says:


    5. george says:

      Pro abortion people, same sex attraction people, and pot heads will not have to worry about RP. He will not fight for the traditional family. He is too interested in his own money over morals.

      1. latinos_for_ron_pablo says:

        Marxist Neo-Con – you are !

    6. SerfCityHereWeCome says:

      Liberal and Libertarian have the same roots originally. Until the late 19th, early 20th century, “Classical Liberalism” was a free-market laissez-faire ideology of the right which eventually branched off into Conservatism and Libertarianism. The term “Liberal” was then co-opted by the extremist left fringe of the early labor movement around a century ago, and now “Modern Liberalism” stands as a sort of tongue-in-cheek description for statist totalitarianism.

  103. Justin T says:

    To second the other poster, NEWSFLASH: people are already using drugs! Let’s decriminalize it and TREAT it as a health issue, just like Portugal did and look at their success (that would assume you’re in any way informed on anything, which you obviously are not).

    I’m so tired of having to even address morons like yourself. Get educated!

    1. Manios says:

      Just how exactly is choosing to use drugs a ‘health issue’?

  104. krp says:

    “Your comment implies that decriminalization of drugs leads to abuse.”

    Alcohol is legal. Are you implying that no one anywhere abuses alcohol?

    1. Steve says:

      Was there alcohol abuse during prohibition?

  105. Tom says:

    This is obviously just anecdotal, but how often do you and your friends sit around on a Friday night talking about how you’d love to try heroin,, but its just too bad its illegal????
    The simple fact is the people prone to abuse drugs are probably alrerady doing it. Any increase in the number of addicts due to legalizing drugs could well be handled better and more inexpensively than the billions of dollars wasted so far in the war on drugs.

  106. Dave says:

    The penalty for drug trafficking in Saudi Arabia is death . . . no exceptions. They don’t have a drug problem there . . . just sayin

  107. kendrick1 says:

    If any voluntarily put themselves in harm’s way, they should be left to be their own advocate. If they indulge in mind altering substances, let them rehabilitate themselves–or die! If they get stuck during a climb on Mt. Everest, let them fend for themselves– or die! Why should the taxpayers have to foot the bill’s for these and similar dangerous flirtations?

    Add these taxpayer costs to the support of welfare recipients, and to the governmet employee, and one shouldn’t wonder why the backbone of the nation–the middle class–is sucking hind teat. We who are working in the private sector are simply slaves!!!

  108. rusty shakleford says:

    Wow, and for those who have been against legalizing drugs it’s shows how much they’ve “thought” about the drug problem over the decades. Cash, when are you going to wake up and realized the drug war is simply another cash cow for the U.S. government, who happens to be the biggest dope kingpin in the history of mankind.

  109. djw663 says:

    Ron Paul makes a whole lot of sense when it comes to Gov’t here at home, his social and economic policies are fantastic, I just wish his foreign policy was better.
    We should all be educated by our parent’s, our peer’s and oiur school’s to know what is harmful for us it is not like the information is not all over the TV, radio and I know my parent’s always had fruits, vegetables, protien’s and grains with our meals and we were all educated with the food pyramid. If some people want to kill themselves I would hope that is the right.

    1. Justin T says:

      Foreign policy? What’s wrong with bringing our troops home and ONLY going to war when Congress declares it and we have a plan to win? Please explain to me what is wrong with Ron Paul’s foreign policy.

  110. Gryphonwhip says:

    I just wanted to correct the idiot who said that in English Common law one cannot be both the perpetrator and the victim of a crime. This is completely untrue. The example you used, suicide, was in fact illegal under English common law. ECL made a distinction between two different types of suicide, one where the person was incapable of rational decision making, and was considered incapable of being held accountable for their act if it failed, and the second “felo-de-se” otherwise known as an “evil doer against himself.” Under ECL, if the attempt was successful, the individual would forfeit his/her entire estate to the crown, and their body would suffer various indignities (being quartered, dragged through the streets, impaled on pikes in the town square to be viewed by the public) but ultimately they would be buried n unmarked graves, many times they would be tossed beneath bridges to be consumed by the wildlife or hungry people with no concern for dignity or health. If they lived, the person would have their entire estate forfeited to the state and would be banished from the city with the clothes on their backs. So, it was possible, and in fact quite selfish and dangerous to ones family, to be both the victim and the perpetrator of the same crime by attempting or succeeding at taking your own life. It remained a crime in the UK until 1961, when it seems the English realized they could save money by allowing people to kill themselves in their advancing age after the two world wars. Due to their socialized healthcare system, it benefitted the state greatly to have unhappy, and unhealthy people end their miserable lives. So, just wanted to clear that up for stupid.

  111. Hec Jervae says:

    The problem with the “war on drugs”:
    It creates a permanent criminal subculture more harmful to society than the drugs themselves.
    While it’s true that drugs can ruin peoples lives, SO CAN THROWING THEM IN PRISON FOR YEARS FOR A VICTIMLESS CRIME. The millions of people in jail for drug crimes would be better off getting treatment rather than the dungeon.
    Ron Paul is for a new birth of freedom – this is why he is hated by a tyrannical system, supported by lemmings.

  112. Justin T says:

    Ron Paul cuts right through the False Reality. It is still astonishing, however, reading these comments, and realizing how many utterly, mind-bogglingly IGNORANT morons there are in this country.

    The Drug War is a joke. The War on Terror is a joke. Our MEDIA is a joke. The Right/Left Paradigm is a LIE. Our schools are a joke. And we see the PRODUCT of a system in its reams of moronic supplicants who spew State-Approve Propaganda at any chance.

    THINK FOR YOURSELF. Drugs are a health issue, NOT a criminal matter. If you commit a crime on drugs, we have laws already in place to deal with it. Legalizing drugs will not send drug use through the roof, either (see: Portugal, Netherlands). Imagine if we redirected all the money we spend on prisons on rehab? Imagine that. Wow. What a concept.

    I just can’t believe how stupid my fellow citizens are — fearful, mindless idiots who just eat up the propaganda.

  113. tiernanlaw says:

    So, Hypocrites, please explain why its not Constitutional to force people to buy healthcare insurance but its perfectly OK to Force them to obey government dictates concerning what foods and herbs they can put in THEIR OWN BODY?

    What part of the Constitution gives the Federal government the power to outlaw drugs?

    Please Hypocrites, let us know!

    I find the level of ignorance of so-called conservatives here amazing. Somehow the same people who say it is unconstitutional for Obama to force people to purchase healthcare because the Constitution delgates no such power, believe that same Constitution givers the Federal government the power to control what I eat and Smoke!

    Please tell us what section of the US Constituion gives the Federal Governement ANY POWER to control what I eat and smoke! If you cant, SHUT THE H*LL UP!


    who attack the idea that PEOPLE THEMSELVES should decide what they eat and smoke, a

  114. Pat says:

    With total freedom to put whatever you want into your own body, there would not be any more arrests of Amish people selling raw milk. And, there would not be a Federal Agent inspecting children’s lunch bags to find out if they have enough vegetables.

    If you want more info about foods see HoneyBearRC dot org

  115. sean patriot says:


  116. tiernanlaw says:

    So, Hypocrites, please explain why its not Constitutional to force people to buy healthcare insurance but its perfectly OK to Force them to obey government dictates concerning what foods and herbs they can put in THEIR OWN BODY?

    What part of the Constitution gives the Federal government the power to outlaw drugs?

    Please Hypocrites, let us know!

    I find the level of ignorance of so-called conservatives here amazing. Somehow the same people who say it is unconstitutional for Obama to force people to purchase healthcare because the Constitution delgates no such power, believe that same Constitution gives the Federal government the power to control what I eat and Smoke!

    Please tell us what section of the US Constitution gives the Federal Governement ANY POWER to control what I eat and smoke! If you cant, SHUT THE H*LL UP!


  117. LoL says:

    Rich, u mad bro?

    I am not a Paul supporter, but he is absolutely right on this issue. The war on drugs is a waste of time. The government shouldn’t be in the business of paternalism. People have a right to do what they want with their own bodies.

    1. BJ says:

      … until those rights infringe on others. Go check out the crime statistics. The overwhelming number of violent crimes, domestic abuse, robberies, etc all are linked to folks under the influence of narcotics.

      As I mentioned above – I will gladly sign off on legalizing anything so long as you sign off on mandatory doubling of prison sentences for anyone breaking the law while under the influence.

      1. Jeff says:

        Hey BJ, since you don’t include an statistics to back up your nonsense I’ll include some for you.
        About 40% of all traffic fatalities are alcohol related.
        About 36% of all prisoners were drinking at the time of the offense.
        About 62% of those on probation were drinking at the time of the last offense.
        Among the 11 million victims of violence in a recent year, 2.2 million said that the offender was under the influence of alcohol, while only .6 million were under the influence of drugs.
        Among victims of domestic violence, alcohol played a role in 55% of the cases, while drugs played a role in only 9% of the cases; for spousal violence, alcohol was a factor in 65% of the cases, versus only 5% for drugs.
        Among all victims of violence, the alcohol played a role in 28% of the cases, compared to only 7% for drugs.
        For rapes, alcohol was a factor in 30% of the cases; drugs were a factor in only 4%.
        In just over 40% of all homicide cases, alcohol was a factor.
        An estimated 450,000 died because of tobacco in the year 2000. Another 85,000 died because of alcohol, compared to just 17,000 deaths from the use of illegal drugs; 32,000 died from adverse reactions to prescription drugs; none died from using marijuana. What does this tell us? Obviously the most deadly drugs (tobacco, alcohol and prescription drugs) are perfectly legal, which the least deadly are illegal. You can draw your own conclusion about why this is the case.

  118. Johnathan says:

    We can not afford to allow people to drink raw milk. The nation must control the health of every individual to ensure we have good cannon fodder.

  119. Homey D Clown says:

    This geezer is a nut. Will never get elected. It’s proof that when you’re young, you’re dumb and when you get old, you get dumber again.

  120. DaFish says:

    Do you really think government regulations & laws are keeping millions of people off of drugs?! Are you serious? Crime rates would go DOWN if anything! And if you knew anything about Ron Paul you would know he is against ANY & ALL government health care!

  121. sean patriot says:


    1. Ty says:

      I guess you would agree to ban guns because they are dangerous, and people do dangerous, violent acts with them.
      The world is a dangerous place with or without drugs.

      1. llll says:

        One, drugs kill just ask Cobain, Winehouse and any number in the regular newspaper each night. Secondly, I’d be a bit more inclinded to allow drugs as long as I don’t have to pay for your medical bills. Same laws for driving under the influence and such…

        As much as everyone wants to make this seem like just let them do it, it’s really not that easy a issue.

  122. Steve S says:

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

    Principles. The word you want is principles.

    Love seeing articles on Ron Paul and his sensible stands, and I hate being picky, but I am getting tired of seeing the same writing mistakes over and over from people who are, presumably, paid to communicate.

    It’s the principle of the thing.

    1. Justin T says:

      Product of America’s school system. We are a joke as a nation.

  123. John says:

    I can’t believe he said such a stupid thing. “Anything”, Heron, Cocaine, crystal meth, anything a person wants? Give me a break!

  124. patriotgirl1 says:

    I work in LE and believe me, making drugs illegal DOES NOT WORK. Drug addicts will use drugs no matter what. Meanwhile, taxpayers waste money on programs THAT DO NOT WORK. If one wants help, it’s there. Putting a guy in jail for a little weed or a pill is ridiculous! I see the same people all the time…what a waste of taxpayer money. We’re fooling ourselves!

  125. Ed Ucation says:

    We would deal with it the same way we deal with alcohol, which is legal. Plus, there are millions more addicted to alcohol.

  126. Cranios says:

    Simple answer: Because under ObamaCare, the rest of us have to pay for the medical consequences of every decision you make.

    Therefore, under ObamaCare, every decision you could make is now the government’s decision to make.

    Exactly as Obama wants it.

  127. JoeBrooklyn1969 says:

    What about steroids?

  128. RK says:

    Legalizing drugs would solve more problems than it causes. Not 100% with RP on everything, but 100% on this.

  129. Cranios says:

    Simple answer: Under ObamaCare, the medical consequences of every personal decision are borne by the government, therefore the government can dictate what you put into your body. Otherwise, Ron Paul would be correct.

    1. Blackops says:

      Obamacare is unconstitutional and so it the war on drugs.

      DHS is probably monitoring this site for “right wing extremism”
      Oh noes, i have an opinion… NDAA me please!

  130. David says:

    you are assuming that anti-drug legislation keeps people from getting drugs, and that no drug addicts drive. Both of these assumptions are wrong. The war on drugs is exactly like Prohibition, it doesn’t work. The Government’s job is to protect us from others(hence dwi laws), not protect us from ourselves.

    1. Kurt says:

      So David, When people fry their brains doing meth, coke, heroine or any of the other illegal drugs, are you going to openly pay for these people to be cared for the rest of their lives in some institution somewhere? That is the dark argument to all those who say we should make things like it is in Amsterdam. You never really hear from those people who just kinda go-way one day never to be seen again. Then we have that new government agency that will monitor all of this. Nightmare just waiting to happen.

      1. Hec Jervae says:

        So you think it’s less expensive to keep millions of Americans in prison as opposed to treating them for drug problems?

  131. Jeremy Fears says:

    To the sheeple: When the only source of information you’ve ever received is either from a corporation (FOX, CNN, CBS, NBC) or your government (whose “elected” officials take money from aforementioned corporations), it’s easy to say completely illogical things and feel like you’re right. However, there is this new invention called books. And in some of these books, believe it or not, there bare accounts of things that we as a culture have done in our past. These are called history books. You can use them to learn from the past and not make the same ridiculous mistakes again. Now I know there are alot of words in here with more than one syllable, but if you get confused at all there’s this other great new book put out by a guy named Webster that should help out quite a bit.


  132. AdvocateMom says:

    Thank you Dr. Paul! There’s more to this issue than legalizing marijuana. In a recent lawsuit, an Amish farmer lost in court, our govenment winning with arguments that there is no inherent right to eat or feed your families what you want. (Preschooler’s lunch of turkey sandwich, banana, chips and apple juice being taken from her as unhealthy in exchange for those gawd-awful chicken nuggets ring a bell?) Another argument our government put forward was that we had no right to contract; (in answer to farmers selling shares in their dairy cattle to provide shareholders with raw milk.) This is the same instrument used by CSA’s around the country! The current administration, within all of it’s departments, is selling Americans down the river. Ron Paul, whether you agree with him 100% or not, is our only hope at turning ALL of this around!

  133. Mike says:

    If Ron Paul was around during Prohibition, the same knuckleheads would be crying that “if alcohol was legal everyone would be a drunk … bla bla bla. You’d think we learned nothing from Prohibition. Do you see people shooting innocent children over a six pack of beer anymore? If drugs were legal we would confine the social harm to those who freely choose to ruin their own lives – we wouldn’t be wasting billions of dollars on interception, imprisonment, drug wars in our neighborhoods, etc. Most importantly – the ridiculous, unnecessary violence that stems directly from drug trafficking would be eliminated. We could apply the money currently being wasted in a futile attempt to stop drug trafficking to rehabilitation and prevention.

  134. Jimmy Stewart says:

    Because we would end up like you!!! The nutty professor!! Taking drugs and drinking excessively does affect other people you fool! Paul’s brain must be fried from too many past drugs.

    1. Ramrod says:

      Jimmy has the WAR on DRUGs ended drug use?nope all its done is corrupt Police forces,corrupt Politicians made the Mob rich,gangs rich & murderers. fueled the Jail industry.the collateral damage from WAR on DRUGs worse than the drugs themselves.the murder in inner cities the murder on Mexican border all because of WAR on DRUGs get you fist out of your

  135. Jimmy Stewart says:

    He’s the nutty professor and he strikes again and again and again but he’s a loser that’s the only problem, he has no chance.

    1. jdub says:

      nice defeatist attitude. chances are you are a debt-enslaved robot and see no hope for your own life.

      Keep voting for republicans or democrats and see where that gets us…..



  136. Fred in Boise says:

    Call me risk adverse.

    Love Ron Paul on economics.

    Think he doesn’t consider the obvious, potentially disastrous effects of his preferred social and international (well, ok, only half of his international) ideas.
    Too much of my money goes to support irresponsible people as it is.

    Legalize dope, but first figure out how to keep my money from “saving” the dopers.

    Obama is a radical hypocrite. The Republicans are all status quo schmucks–but at least at present things could still get worse so maybe we can wait for someone more balanced by Ron Paul before we start to really torque things in WA. Just get rid of Obama NOW.

  137. H0nestabe says:

    Amazing! CBS and other news affiliates only care to report on Ron Paul when it is to smear him? The war on drugs has been nothing short of a failure. Just another example of big incompetent government showing everybody just how wasteful they can be at a cost to Americans freedom.

    Let’s talk more about Ron Paul shall we? Ron Paul won’t give too big to fails bailouts. That’s a plus right? Ron Paul wants to end the failed wars in the middle east. Another plus right? Ron Paul wants to trim back failed government agencies like the department of education. That’s a plus right? Ron Paul wants to trim one trillion dollars out the federal budget in his first year in office. That’s a plus right? Ron Paul would like to end the IRS and Federal Reserve. Only a moron would think that’s not a plus.

    Vote for Romney or any of the other big government supporting statists and the BS will continue. Ron Paul is the man. He doesn’t give a f#ck what stupid brainwashed zombies think of him…

  138. jdub says:

    Either we all vote for Ron Paul and we all get to keep our beliefs….
    (christian or atheist, gay or hetero, drinker/smoker/health nut) OR
    we keep fighting each other, dividing our country, and ultimatley everybody losing their rights……

    The smallest minority on earth is the individual.

    those who deny individual rights cannot claim to be defenders of minorities!

    1. george says:

      civil liberties is not a license to do anything we want to do…it is what we OUGHT to do. RP is aniti family and will not fight for the Judeo-Christian beliefs our country was founded upon. And if you don’t believe the family is worth fighting for…then you are misguided and lost.
      So ya better get out of this cult of following a man who breeds fear in his followers and free yourself.

      1. Flame says:

        Anyone who says Dr. Paul is anti-family (I presume that’s what your misspelled word was supposed to be) and opposed to Judeo-Christian values clearly has not read his positions. While he has no position paper that is titled “family values” per se, his positions on right to life, home schooling (“put the parents in charge”), and the economy (the more money a family can keep, the better they can raise their kids and provide) clearly indicate that this is a man totally steeped in family values.

        I’ve met Ron Paul, and you, george, are clearly falling for the lame-stream media lies.

    2. Rakes says:

      @ george

      You’re completely wrong in every statement. What we ought to do is different from person to person since it is based upon perception. Ron Paul is a Christian. This country was not founded on Christianity anyways. “In God We Trust” wasn’t even added until the ’50s over fear of Communism. Go do some research and then come back. Ron Paul is the only trustworthy candidate. He says what he believes and lets no one sway him. Aside from that and his financial predictions that always blossom into truth, he has never changed his stance. He is the only candidate that will get our debt crisis under control and he isn’t shaking hands with any cronies. Newt the deciever, Romney the billionaire, or the sweater-vest-wearing social issue obsessed rookie will not change the domestic fiscal outlook of this nation.

  139. Fred in Boise says:

    Call me risk adverse.
    Love Ron Paul on economics.
    Think he doesn’t consider the obvious, potentially disastrous effects of his preferred social and international (well, ok, only half of his international) ideas.
    Too much of my money goes to support irresponsible people as it is.

    Legalize dope, but first figure out how to keep my money from “saving” the dopers.

    Obama is a radical hypocrite. The Republicans are all status quo schmucks–but at least at present things could still get worse so maybe we can wait for someone more balanced by Ron Paul before we start to really torque things in WA. Just get rid of Obama NOW.

  140. cmoursler says:

    What ron paul is saying…and I actually agree with that we are telling others what to do with their body, their time and their resources. It’s a ridiculous waste of time and money. You can still calll the cops on your rowdy neighbors…make it illegal to drive while high…or be publically high. etc. The idea is that you are responsible for yourself…as for welfare..if ron paul were in office, I am guessing a great deal of that would be done away with. So no drug testing neccessary, because they wouldn’t be receiving food stamps. The same people who say only druggies support him cannot explain why the military supports him. I actually heard one turd state it’s because the military DEOSN’T WANT TO FIGHT…really? REALLY? You mean besides the two wars they have been slogging through for the last 11 years? That was a Republican by the way. So much for support the troops when it gets in the way of your ideology. unbelievable. I am starting to think the republicans and democrats are two sides of the same coin….the interfering government. On one side you’ve got the conservatives in everyone’s bed…on the other in everyone’s food, and family. Ron paul says GET OUT…is that sooooo hard to understand.

  141. ConservativeRedneck says:

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

    Sodomites nation wide agree with you liberal!

  142. Fred in Boise says:

    Call me risk adverse.

    Love Ron Paul on economics.

    Think he doesn’t consider the obvious, potentially disastrous effects of his preferred social and international (well, ok, only half of his international) ideas.

    Too much of my money goes to support irresponsible people as it is.
    Legalize dope, but first figure out how to keep my money from “saving” the dopers.

    Obama is a sleazy Chicago LMF. The Republicans are all status quo schmucks–but at least at present things could still get worse so maybe we can wait for someone more balanced by Ron Paul before we start to really torque things in WA. Just get rid of Obama NOW.

  143. Hec Jervae says:

    Ron Paul represents the last gasp of the American Revolution. When totalitarianism comes to America it will be wrapped in a flag and called democracy. Ron Paul preaches freedom as the powers-that-be move toward tyranny.

  144. Fred in Boise says:

    Call me risk adverse.

    Love Ron Paul on economics.

    Think he doesn’t consider the obvious, potentially disastrous effects of his preferred social and international (well, ok, only half of his international) ideas.

    Too much of my money goes to support irresponsible people as it is.
    Legalize dope, but first figure out how to keep my money from “saving” the dopers.

    Obama is a sleazy Chicago LMF. The Republicans are all status quo schmucks–but at least at present things could still get worse so maybe we can wait for someone more balanced by Ron Paul before we start to really torque things in DC. Just get rid of Obama NOW.

  145. Chris says:

    Dont vote for Ron Paul, keep borrowing money from china and fueling the revolution in mexico. the republicans and democrats will protect you, they care about the border, that war.Keep making goldman sachs rich off the money you borrow in your kids names, what could go wrong. you kids will enjoy NDAA, and the trillions in debt….0bama/Romney whats the difference? there is none!

  146. Justin T says:

    I love the argument, “Who is going to pay for the HEALTH CARE COSTS if we legalize drugs?” Ohh, I’d say the BILLIONS we spend on the “Drug War” might go a long way toward that, don’t ya think? How about the BILLIONS spent locking up non-violent offenders?

    Such short-sighted thinking. All I’m hearing, really, are tools of the State calling for a Police State. “Protect me! Protect me! Save me, Federal Government!”

    Alcohol, a potent drug, is legal and we’re still here! Society has survived! Imagine that? And it will survive it marijuana and other drugs are legalized!

    And guess what? The Mexican drug lords will be OUT OF BUSINESS!!!

  147. Mark says:

    Actually, Portland is a suburb of Vancouver. the original town was Vancouver, Portland came along later.

  148. JustAGuy says:

    I’m going to do a Bing search on Meth Mouth, and the effects on the children of Meth addicts.

    I’m totally against intrusive government into our lives, but some laws are just plain common sense.

    1. Dave says:

      Fair enough, meth, heroin, and possibly a few others are pretty bad, but most are not. And, the FDA is now going after very benign plants like maca, very nutritional items, like raw milk. They are insane and unreasonable, so I do not trust them at all.

      Hell all of this discussion is moot until they can prove they can balance a budget! Bond vigilantes WILL HAVE THEIR WAY at some point soon, and any increase in interest rates mean increase on interest paid on the debt. There is a point at which the only escape is debasing of the currency. We are without a doubt moving to lower standards of living, perhaps for decades, and so should plan for this by chilling out with the unnecessary government. People need to get out of the employment of the government because they do not produce anything exportable and they do not generate economic growth. Only after we have a stable economy with a government that spends no more than it takes in can we really start debating what it is that a government should take on in terms of social welfare. We aren’t anywhere near that point because it is too easy for cronies to cheat. Why? Because there is no backing to the currency. It’s so simple, and we have proven (over millenia) that governments do not control spending when there is no inherent check in the form of a competing hard currency. We could have that now without changing anything, if only JPM and HSBC and their ilk were prevented from manipulating those paper markets. If true price discovery existed, however, the USA could not fund it’s militarized reach in so many faraway lands, and the cronies who take money from the “military industrial complex” would not be able to line their pockets at the taxpayer expense. The corruption really does run deep in our government, and only Ron Paul seriously wants to get the money out of politics. I think we need to have serious punishment for politicians that accept any money from non-individuals, with limits on what individuals can donate ($1000 is fine). That would cut back on the 18month presidential campaigns no doubt.. We also need term limits for the House.

  149. rickey roma says:

    this guy calls himself a doctor?

  150. kongMing says:

    Wow he’s awful.

    He completely disregards the public implications of decriminalizing drugs. Do you really think the manufacturer of meth, heroin, crack and weed will be created privately by addicts with no public involvement whatsoever?

    The same with their consumption of this assumed victim less crime. Children of addicts are disregarded, as well as the notion that addicts commit crime solely to fuel their addiction only, and not a broader idea that morals and laws are for fools and cowards or a sense of victimization which Ron Paul now spreads.

    There will always be an age limit, unless you want to sell an 8 year old crack. If you disregard this, look at the child soldiers in Nigeria or Mexico.

    Also how can he disregard addiction rates will surely go up with easier accesd to drugs? Do you think there would be less drunks if gin sold for a $1 a gallon or there was dime beer at every NFL game?

    1. Ramrod says:

      FACT Drugs use to be legal and we had far less crime,murder etc.

  151. Mitchie124 says:

    Klaus, you’re a brainwashed dolt. It has nothing to do with drugs, it’s about following the constitution and getting big government out of our lives!

    1. Klaus says:

      I totally agree with you. There is no Constitutional authority to limit what anyone chooses to put into their body. Government officials on the take made some drugs illegal so they could make more money selling them on the black market, and so they could sell their patented drugs as substitutes in a controlled market.

  152. mac says:


    HUH??? you couldn’t sound any more ignorant if you tried!!!
    Ron Paul in 2012. Look at the other candidates (dem and repub). No one comes close to RP. I will always vote for the one that has OUR interests in mind!
    Give it some rela thought. Take your best shot. And lets see how it comes out in the wash. But WTSHTF and you are wondering what happened, you’ll know you had a hand in it!

  153. Ramrod says:

    who WINs in WAR on DRUGs? crooked cops.crooked politicians,CIA>FBI the Mob,gangs jail industry.Who loses in WAR on DRUGs? the biggest suckers of them all the TAXPAYER who flips the bill for WAR on DRUGs.JAIL is for people you fear not behavior you dont like

  154. Jon Watts says:

    Those that consume the psychoactive drug alcohol, or abuse prescription drugs cannot argue the evils of “drugs” without being hypocrites. So get off your high horse.

    Ron Paul argues the point not on a recreational basis, but rather on the extreme cost of the drug war in lives and money, and more importantly, the very idea of individual liberty. If you consider yourself intellectually honest, read this.

  155. SerfCityHereWeCome says:

    This craziness, along with his isolationist fanaticism, is what gives Libertarians a bad name. He would however be a terrific Fed chairman or budget director in a GOP adm to not only slow but reverse this insanity.

    1. Buck O'Fama says:


    2. Jon Watts says:

      Ron Paul argues the point not on a recreational basis, but rather on the extreme cost of the drug war in lives and money, and more importantly, the very idea of individual liberty. Is that what you consider crazy? If you think of yourself as intellectually honest, read this:

      Secondly, stop spreading the “isolationist” falsehood. His policies are not isolationist. He is a constitutional non-interventionist, just like Jefferson. After being a tea partier since 2008, I see that there are some “conservatives” that are actually for big government and against individual liberty. That’s why I’ll be a Libertarian from now on, and not a Republican.

      “Crazy” “Fanatic” – Liberals also used those words to no effect against conservatives at one time. It wasn’t true then, as it isn’t now.

  156. Jeremy Fears says:

    Golly jeez, ya know what would be really swell? The government could take all that money we give them and hire us each our own morality guide! Then we’d never do anything bad to ourselves. Actually, they could just give us all lobotomies and we’d all be set!

  157. Buck O'Fama says:

    Many things I agree with RP on, many more I don’t. Legalize all of it, you can grow it, buy it or whatever but if you become a useless sack of flesh, no federal or state funds, services or sympathies for you. Smoke your freedom.
    If you become ill, incapacitated or otherwise incapapble of caring for yourself because of your overuse of “freedom”, you had better have money, insurance or family otherwise you’l be moved outdoors with a nice family of raccoons to live with.

    P.s. Paulbots, RP has won nothing, will not be the nominee and you need to stop holding your breath and pouting, there won’t be any goverment program to deal with people who don’t get their way either.

  158. JAR1000 says:

    Most people couldn’t care less about what you put in your body. The problem is that when your life falls apart and you can’t find a job, need healthcare, want something to eat, and shelter you expect the government or the tax payers to provide for you. The safety net was supposed to be for hard working people who fell on hard times not for losers to rely as their lives spin out of control.

  159. Ramrod says:

    During prohibition of Alcohol ,Alcohol abuse skyrocketed Bill W who founded AA became a Drunk during prohibition in the Movie Lost Weekend with Ray Milland when they locked him up in Drunk house the guy who worked there said to him you should been here during prohibition we didnt have enough beds.

  160. Shawn Sha says:

    Total non-sense, Ron Paul’s idiotic stance would make suicide legal, because “putting anything in your body” would mean overdoses if you choose it.

    He also doen’t get that illicit mind altering drugs do in fact make the person crazy and they do in fact leave their house and offend the rights, liberty and life ot others
    In a truly free society , your rights end where the rights of others begin,
    Protection from the government AND from other citizens

    1. Ant says:

      so you can’t commit suicide via OD right now?

    2. Henry Dennison says:

      “they [might] leave their house and offend the rights, liberty and life ot others”

      Right, so punish them harshly when they do. And I’m fine with the double the penalties if you’re drunk/high policy suggested earlier. The real problem is the initiation of government sponsored violence against people who do not offend the liberty and life of others.

      The legalization debate is really irrelevant to the Ron Paul campaign though because under his policies, drug prohibition will be a decision for the states to make for themselves. The US can then save the billions of dollars it would otherwise spend on kevlar vests, flash grenades, assault rifles, helicopters and other fancy toys paid for with federal drug task force grants.

    3. Rakes says:

      Overdosing would eliminate all the morons who will kill themselves anyways. At least we would be paying for them to be penalized over and over. They’re going to do it anyways so let them choose their own fate. Suicide is illegal but it shouldn’t be. Who would be penalized for breaking that law when the suspect is dead? They already gave themselves the death penalty! When a college student overdoses on alcohol and gets alcohol poisoning what happens? DUH.

      Barrack Obama, Bill Clinton, Jon Huntsman, and Steve Jobs all did illegal drugs and they’ve made bigger differences in this world than you ever will. Isn’t THAT “crazy?” There are “truly free” societies all over the world which do no criminalize use of drugs and they haven’t burned to the ground. When you exercise your rights and they infringe the rights of another, you are being unlawful whether on drugs or not. Drugs aren’t the problem. Lack of knowledge is the problem. I’d say you need some education. Ever had nicotine, caffeine, or flouride/toothpaste? They’re all drugs. The government just chooses which ones you should be allowed access to. Let the stupid and weak have their drugs. Less innocents will be harmed if we do and less idiots will be around to leech off the strong.

    4. Dave says:

      drug incarceration is expensive man. There are people still serving time from the 90’s for marijuana possession. Is that fair? The proportion of drug incarcerations to others, both federal and state, is somewhere in the 40’s%.

      Meanwhile, the US has one of the very lowest crime rates in the world. It’s not exactly a big problem you see. The real priority is planning for our energy future and getting the g.d. budget balanced. The debt problem is so much bigger than the drug/crime “problem.” Meanwhile, the war on drugs doesn’t even work. I have been enjoying recreational marijuana on occasion (NOT daily, that is irresponsible, but that’s because I can’t be productive like that — I don’t care about someone else’s habits) for over ten years, and I have recently been able to retire from a corporate life of 15 years after making up to $90K, and so now I can do whatever I want, which happens to be starting a business. My ability to acquire and safely use drugs has never been impaired by laws. Only poorly raised children grow up to be irresponsible at whatever they do, yet no one is trying to tackle that problem at all. Teachers who have been at their craft for decades are complaining that no-child-left-behind and standardized testing has done nothing but wreck the priorities of schools, yet we are paying more per child than ever and getting the worst output as ever. Don’t you see?

      Legislating behavior is treating the symptom, pure and simple! It is a bandage that never gets changed. It is the easy way out, yet ineffective. We are letting down future generations. People around think they know so much and never seem to be open to the idea that they are wrong. They try to imply causation through correlation, one of the oldest logical fallacies “in the book”.

    5. Elise says:

      I think suicide should be legal. Also, your argument (like several others on here) is based on the premise that legalizing illicit “mind altering” drugs will cause more people to use them. People already use them and they are illegal.

      You must be for the criminalization of alcohol as well.

  161. says:

    I don’t do drugs legal or illegal. The issue is to let the states decide these matters and not the federal government. Its about getting back to the Constitution that so many have forgotten.

    I’m not some college teen. I’m a 35 year old male with a full time job and family. I’m a proud Ron Paul supporter.

  162. Prudence says:

    And why is it that online gambing is illegal, but states can operate lotteries and other games of chance?

  163. Sally says:

    All political arguments are now worthless. There is no such thing as society. There is just you, your family who you have a love hate relationship with, some people you are forced to work with at work, and a small amount of your chosen friends. Then there is the media, and the government, and the faceless hundreds of millions who vote to have you taxed. The only free sphere in the whole world is inside your own house. You should do whatever drug you want in your own house and have a stock portfolio that is enough to pay your property taxes, own your own house, and grow your own vegetables and slaughter your own home grown chickens and try and enjoy the few decades you have left. There is not going to be any real revolution of liberty in your lifetime. The people next to you in the voting booths don’t care whether they ask your permission first before asking the government to take your money and bring about a supposed utopia that never comes.

    Bunker down, try and save enough money to have a place to live, put up with the ever present group of thugs called the government who will always be there to take by force at least some of your wealth, find some good friends, be kind to your family, and light up a joint in your own back yard on your lawn chair, because things are never going to get better. And we all die alone riddled with industrial cancer and plutonium smog.

    You cannot win. Others do not care what happens to you, others do not care what taser and gun toting thugs smash down your door to steal your weed, and religion is dead. Civilization is in immediate freefall and decline and immigrants are flowing in by the tuck load. It is over. There is nothing but total authoritarian collectivism and your ‘freedom’ to leave an anonymous internet comment at the bottom of a news story.

    For your own good, stop even paying attention.

  164. woody says:


    Section 1. Congress shall pass no law that infringes upon the right of the people to ingest, inhale, inject, or otherwise expose themselves to any food, vitamin, medicine, or other substance, or to undergo any medical procedure, as they so choose, regardless of its effects, unless the act of doing so violates the rights of others under Section 2 of this Amendment; and no law passed by Congress shall infringe on the right of the people to produce, market, distribute, or obtain such items and services.

    Section 2. No law shall require any person, against his/her will, either by coercion, by deception, or by force, to ingest, to inhale, to be injected with, or to otherwise be exposed to any food, vitamin, medicine, or other substance, or to undergo any medical procedure, regardless of any real or perceived benefit; and no law shall require submission to the same as a condition to receive a taxpayer funded benefit or service (e.g., public education).

  165. SerfCityHereWeCome says:

    I’m adamant that the goobermint have the absolute MINIMUM amount of power possible– basically just enough to prevent anarchy– but aren’t you guys in the legalization crowd overlooking an obvious consequence of legalization? Namely the fact that a person’s right to swing his fist in the air ends at the tip of another person’s nose, and a person who is on drugs suffers from impaired aim.

  166. tim says:

    Because it puts other people at risk. Risk is not something that Paul understands.

  167. 1934 Germany says:

    RON PAUL or I’m voting for the usurper, Barry Soetoro so as to hasten the economic collapse and further descent into tyranny. Only then will enough sheep awaken.

    1. SerfCityHereWeCome says:

      Oh, that makes sense. So you’re willing to vote for what has a very good chance of becoming PERMANENT tyranny in the hope that that’ll wake the sheep up. Have enough “sheep awaken” in Zimbabwe yet? How did that strategy work with FDR who stuck around until the reaper finally “defeated” him?

  168. Nick says:

    Im a Marine veteran…a fireman…a union member…..i have never did drugs…..I SUPPORT RON PAUL…..anyone who doesnt, supports the typical, cottupt dishonest elitist politician who will take America in the wrong direction. You thought Bush was bad? It got us OBAMA! 100 times worse. Then you want Santorum or Mitt? That will ensure us a 2016 Hillary and then we are all royally fu**ed!

  169. Max says:

    The country is drowning in debt and corruption and all RP can ask is:

    Why can’t we put anything we want in our bodies?

    What a total F-ing MORON !!!!

  170. Toxic Avenger says:

    Yes, Ron Paul should consume feces.

  171. Phil says:

    It really trips me out to hear a DOCTOR ask that question…. Hey Dr. Paul. Let me ask you a question. Do you REALLY, as a doctor, advocate for people putting whatever they want in their bodies? Do you think that an emergency room physician who sees countless overdoses and deaths from overdoses would agree with you? You think they’d get tired of having to see the death from people “putting whatever they want” in their bodies?

    1. Paulbot number 87,342,938 says:

      Funny because all those things are now illegal yet doctors still see countless overdoses. Maybe, if we didn’t spend billions enforcing stupid laws that no one obeys and focused on prevention we would have less of these overdoeses? Hmmmm. Maybe Phil, Dr. Paul has seen this and has realized that wasting people and resources fighting something people will do anyway isn’t the answer. Maybe Phil, if you understood basic economics that raising the prices for drugs or making them illegal has little affect of their use.

    2. Ramrod says:

      Phil we had less drug abuse when drugs were legal geesh during prohibition of Alcohol alcohol abuse skyrocketed. Phil how did prohibition work huh? the SAint Valentines massacre happens every day in inner cities & mexican border because of WAR on DRUGs. Who WINs in WAR on DRUGs? crooked cops,crooked politicians,CIA,FBI,the Mob,gangs,jail industry.Who loses in WAR on DRUGs the biggest suckers of them all the Taxpayer & you are a total

  172. AVM says:

    Totally Ridiculous as usual ,Where does the money come from for the drugs ? Crime and look at all the children these drugged out dirt-bags have that law abiding citizen have pay for life .Ron Paul is a bad joke .

  173. Paulbot number 87,342,938 says:

    I love how the anti-Paul people here have to twist every shred of truth in order to make Paul look unqualified. What it really comes down to is that they just don’t get it. They have no concept of freedom or liberty and they have absolutely no understanding of the Constitution or what this country is all about.

    Forget about discussing topics wth them rationally as they will take one idea, like the freedom to put in your body what you want, and make absolutely absurb comments as to why we are wrong.

    You can lead an idiot to the truth but you can’t make him believe it.

    1. Jon Watts says:

      True enough. Here’s some good info on liberty that may win some minds for you on this topic.

      Heep up the fight for freedom!!

      IFFTR! (In Fraternity, for the Republic!) I’m on facebook too..feel free to friend me.

      1. Jon Watts says:

        …and “Keep” it up too! 🙂

    2. Archie Bunker says:

      You’re right. We’ve lost our freedoms liittle by little until people have forgotten what freedom and liberty really mean. Freedom and Liberty come with great responsibility and many people in this country have become so used to the government deciding for them.

  174. casablo says:

    Aside from the fact that Ron Paul is a fruitcake, this stance on legalizing drugs is woefully misguided and irresponsible. Legalizing drugs will NOT eliminate substance abuse but exacerbate it. 75% of all child-abuse and over 50% of domestic violence is related to substance abuse. So somehow making access to drugs will make this go away? Who gets to regulate, tax, and distribute drugs and will that institution also be providing substance abuse treatment? (The Netherlands spends 160 million euros a year on substance abuse treatment). Will the drug cartels just turnover their multi-billion dollar industry to the US Government? Making drugs legal is nothing more than a massive tax on lower income people and placing them into further dependence which will eventually create another entitlement. I repeat, Ron Paul is a fruitcake!

  175. lungshot says:

    A better question: Why are we spending upwards of $100 billion per year on a war that has been lost and only ruins peoples lives much more so than the actual drug use?

    1. Archie Bunker says:

      What’s even more disturbing is why America allows the Afghanistan people to grow opium?

      We need to legalize drugs and stop the madness.

  176. Jerry Frey says:

    Ron Paul reminds me of some 30s character actor in black and white. The Libertarian Party’s presidential candidate in 1988 has dveloped a fervent cult following that perhaps has developed into a lasting movement.


  177. Rand says:

    I have said all along that I would vote for Ron Paul if he becomes the nominee. But, after reading the comments of many of you “supporters” I guess I will join with so many of you , and will vote for Barack Obama on November 6, 2012, if Paul becomes the nominee. I continue to believe that many of you supporters are no more than disguised Obama supporters. I see the same attitudes, and rhetoric from many of you as was expressed in 2008 by the Obama supporters.

    1. Jon Watts says:

      That’s absurd, and you’re a troll

  178. Jerry Frey says:

    Ron Paul reminds me of some 30s character actor in black and white. The Libertarian Party’s presidential candidate in 1988 has dveloped a fervent cult following that perhaps has developed into a lasting movement.


  179. JWnTX says:

    “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?”

    Because we can see what it’s done to you, Ron.

    1. Jon Watts says:

      Ad Hominem. No logic at all.

  180. Josie says:

    My grandpa died because of a DUI. My grandpa was helping another man push a stalled car off the road and a drunk driver hit them both from behind, killing them both. I hate alcohol and what it does to people. It impairs the brain. I completely disagree with Ron Paul on this issue.

  181. Brett says:

    No he doesn’t. Your rights end when they start to impinge on mine, and I have no interest in having to deal with a bunch of drugged-up imbeciles wandering around in my society, committing crimes to pay for their habits, and causing me to pay for their medical care (because, as caring people, we aren’t going to let them die on the streets in a pool of their own filth). There’s no debate that these are the side effects of drug use among serious people, so you can keep deluding yourselves about it but it’s going NOWHERE.

    1. Rakes says:

      There are already imbeciles and drugged-up imbeciles wandering around society so what difference would it make? It’s not like their numbers would triple overnight. If they’re doing drugs, they don’t care about their health or life so why would they care whether it’s lawful or not? Drugs are expensive because they’re illegal, not because they’re hard to make so junkies wouldn’t need to rob you at knife point for a few bucks. They’ll kill themselves off. It’s called natural selection. The strong survive and the weak die. It’s just nature. They won’t be in the hospital because they’ll likely OD and die. If Obamacare is eliminated, they would have to be employed to receive persistent health care anyways. Let them decide their own fate. If you try to help them, they will take advantage of you and return to their dangerous habits. It’s not like those who don’t do drugs will suddenly need the urge to start if they’re decriminalized. They’re already doing them so what’s the difference. Everyone knows most drugs are addictive and life-threatening. Who cares about laws when you’re playing games with death? You seem to be the delusional one who will gladly give our money to completely useless causes.

  182. Jon says:

    The War on Drugs has been raging for over forty years and his unwinnable. The RAND Co issued a report that unequivocally states treating drug abuse like a health issue is far more cost effective than treating it as a criminal justice issue. Legalizing drugs would reduce crime (as President Clinton’s Surgeon general stated, and was later fired for those statements), and if drug use did increase (which it probably would) we could treat it like a health issue rather than locking-up millions of people (if we are truly a free country why do have the highest incarceration rate in the world). I do not support Ron Paul or any of the candidates, but it is time to stop arming and enriching violent drug cartels, destroying drug crops abroad, and waging war on our own people. But why no change in the status quo for the last forty years? The answer is simple — politicians (maybe not Dr. Paul) are cowards.

  183. Josie says:

    My great-grandpa was an alcoholic. When he drank he sometimes tried to kill himself, which terrified the whole family. In the end he lost his family, his money, and his life. He is buried in Hawaii and I’ve been to his grave. I’m angry with him, because of how he hurt my grandpa. I hate alcohol and what it does to people.

  184. LIBERTY NOW says:

    This is Amerika…you will eat the corporate food, you will drink the poisoned water, you will take the drugs dictated, you will abort your children, you will send your children to endless wars, you will not keep the fruits of your labor,you will be mandated, managed, molested, miserable, regulated, restricted, tracked, traced, spied on , porn scanned, entertained with lies, brainwashed & made fearful. Enjoy your freedom.

  185. Taylor says:

    Sweden has tougher laws on marijuana than America and similar laws on alcohol and their drug and alcohol problem is almost non-existent. Swedes simply don’t like marijuana. The problem isn’t regulation, but the culture. The youth here are raised with movies, tv, and music that glamourize drug usage, and I would know. You can’t legalize everything and expect the problem to disappear. That’s practically surrender. Is that how America is going to handle every problem? Is that how we’re going to curb pedophilia too? Sorry hippies and “recreatioonal” drug using zombies, your arguments are just moronic. But what can I expect from those with the bias of having introduced the pathetic feeling of being high and now crave more of it without being punished.

    1. Josie says:

      yes, you make a good argument. I agree with you.

  186. Fred says:

    Where do drug addicts come from? Do people wake up one day and decide, “Hey, I think I want to be addicted to methamphetamine for the rest of my life!” No, virtually every single hard drug user got their first taste FOR FREE from a drug pusher who enticed them to ‘try it’.

    So, the only CERTAIN way to severely reduce the abuse of hard drugs like, heroin, cocaine and meth, is to put the drug pushers out of business by having the government give the drugs away absolutely for FREE to any blood test proven addict with some very simple conditions:

    1. They give up all rights to sue the government for what the drug does to them.
    2. They get some form of ID involving a fingerprint or retina scan that verifies their addiction and dosage requirement.
    3. They agree to allow their name to be listed in some public drug addict register.
    4. The only place they can get their drug, (the REAL stuff not some lame substitute) is at a clinic where it will be administered to them right there – no drugs leave the clinic.

    The result will be the END OF DRUG PUSHERS. No drug pushers means no more new addicts. In 20 to 30 years as the existing addicts die off there will be no new ones to take their place. The clinics will ultimately close their doors and the only new addicts around will be mostly illegals who can just be shipped back where they came from and maybe a few very rich people able to smuggle a drug into the country for their own use.

    Keep all the existing laws, especially distribution to minors. The war on drugs is a FAILURE because it should be a war on the drug BUSINESS. There’s no better way to put someone out of business than giving away what they are selling.

  187. knowzee says:

    So long as there is no availability of public funds in support of any medical treatment that is the result of you putting anything you want into your body, then I say smoke, swallow, ingest anything you want…and public funds won’t be used to bury you either

    1. Rakes says:

      Exactly. That’s how I feel, too. Less of them means more of us leading to a stronger and brighter society.

  188. GoDan says:

    @rich, iam a 61 year male, i don’t drink, don’t take ileagle drugs, but i dont want to leave my children and grandchildren this debt,i also i am a supporter of the 2 nd ammendment, and i know a lot of other Paul suuporters like me and if you do t see whats happerning in this election it appears you are the one on drugs!!

  189. mirted says:

    If Ron Paul ever had to pay the hospital bill for treating a heroin overdose, or the resultant costs to children of drunk, drugged parents, etc. He might feel differently. A huge chunk of addicts (no surprise) don’t earn a living, pay into health insurance, taxes, etc. The taxpayer picks up the expense for that,uisually through medicaid programs who’s reimbursments don’t cover much of the costs of ER, ICU, Dialysis, recovery,disability, etc. I’d be for letting idiots put whatever they want into their bodies, too, if I didn’t know who pays the cost for all of that. I do know is won’t be the addict. And, Ron Paul won’t feel it either.

    Somehow, drug and alcohol abuse has to be viewed by society at large and create an environment where it is considered unacceptable,,even when actors, actresses, and the entertainment crowd have made rehab a good thing on their resume.

    1. Rakes says:

      If we didn’t have a welfare state, many would’ve never would’ve started doing drugs to begin with. If you can’t pay for them, you can’t have them. Our government system is abused so they can abuse thier bodily system. Nip the problem in the bud and they’ll have no choice but to find work. There will be exceptions to every rule. Don’t let that deter you from making a decision that will benefit the majority of proactive society.

  190. Ross says:

    The base foundation of the Pro-Choice position is that a woman has the right to do with her body as she wishes. Doesn’t this (by definition) apply to whatever food she wants to put in her body. And the law cannot discriminate – therefore all of us have the right to do with out body as we wish. No?

  191. SpreadTheTruth says:

    Ron Paul supporters should be outraged over these caucuses. Made up news, polling numbers, fabricated surges, idiotic endorsements, delayed vote counts, I cannot imagine democracy prevailing in this next election especially after the coup and cover up.

    The biggest cover up in history is exposed here

  192. Useful Information says:

    What about mandatory vaccines?
    Check out this article about the CDC knowing about all the harm vaccines can cause:

  193. Captain Obvious says:

    How many times have we heard, “Vote for the lesser of two evils” in our lives? It is precisely because both parties are hypocritical in their beliefs.

    Democrats say that they are for “freedom of choice” on abortion but then try to outlaw things like guns and sugar (!).

    Republicans say that they are all about freedom but then they try to outlaw things based on morality.

    Since both sides are hypocritical, we are ALWAYS left with choosing this “lesser of two evil”.

    Only Ron Paul has a truly consistent philosophy – follow the Constitution.

    Vote Ron Paul!

  194. Sheep says:

    Why? Because shepherd can’t have the sheeps eating just anything. Because the shepherd knows what’s best for his / her sheeps. Because the shepherd needs to make sure the economy of fast food chain’s chicken nuggets thrives.

  195. frank3108 says:

    Why shouldn’t we be able to put anything we want in our own bodies? I don’t know why not ask Whitney Houston? What???? Oh sorry about that. Maybe it’s because if you make it even easier and legal young people will think “it can’t be bad, it’s legal”. Then people end up like Whitney, dead way before their time and the loved ones left behind get to live with the pain. Or, the addict, unable to make it on their own gets supported by the tax payer. Ron Paul is an idiot.

    1. Patrick says:

      So should alcohol be illegal? Tobacco?

  196. chris says:

    No shortage of people that like to “try” sounded intelligent. The only problem is they are uninformed and show their ignorance when they post!

    Annual deaths, from “LEGAL” medical practices (including legal pharma and malpractice) exceeds all other deaths!

    You are a blithering, uninformed moron, if you “presume” the individuals who oppose the “war on drugs” are begging for the privilege to abuse them legally.

    The so called war on drugs is a complete failure, which has cost this nation hundreds of billions (if not trillions) and has resulted in nothing more than creating vicious international criminals, and supported vicious gang growth in our inner cities.

    You can not legislate “YOUR” morality or choices onto others! You may think you can and you may think you succeed at times, but eventually YOUR forbearance on others will come back to bite you in the ass!

    Perhaps a few drugged out individuals jump on Ron Paul wagon here and there, but their numbers are statistically insignificant. The bulk of Ron Paul supporters are about “INDIVIDUAL FREEDOM,” PERIOD!!

    Only a traitor to the ideals of a free nation could presume to make a ridiculous argument against that. Today, we call them Liberals and lefties.

    Compared to “any” other presidential campaigner, Ron Paul has NO negative character flaw. It’s when people attempt to impugn the character or motives of him, or his supporters, that they demonstrate who the REAL antagonistic, uninformed morons are!

  197. 1realtimer2 says:

    The Titled “Question” explains Mr. Paul’s irrationality!!

  198. fred kilcline says:

    This whole subject is silly. There is not going to be legal drugs in the US period. The largest union in the world “the United Brotherhood of Drug Enforcement Police” will not allow it. Think — how many police, dea, atf and interpol agents along with the supporting cast will be without a job if drugs become legal? It will be hundreds of thousands maybe millions and that simply won’t be allowed to happen. Ron Paul is sumply blowing smoke on this subject.

  199. B-Dog Cometh says:

    As a conservative, I’m not a big fan of Ron Paul as some of his views (such as his idiotic head in the sand foreign policy views) are just plain wrong. BUT, on this issue, I think he is somewhat correct, although I’d argue it is not right for the GOVT in regards to marijuana, as that is a plant, and not synthetic. Anything that is naturally occuring, plant life, etc should not be prohibited for use by citizens in a free country. I do think synthetic man-made drugs are different and the Govt has the capability of requiring those to be regulated/prohibited. I’ve listened to arguments pro and con when it comes to marijuana legalization and can honestly say there isn’t a single valid argument when it comes to continued prohibition of marijuana.

  200. Archie Bunker says:

    Real freedom comes with great individual responsibility. Ron Paul understands that while many so-called Republicans still want big government “protecting” us from ourselves.

    RON PAUL 2012

    The man who is right for the times. A man who will shrink government and keep our military strong.

  201. balloon_knot says:

    This comment section is expansive.
    So many experts on so many topics, color me impressed.

  202. Elena says:

    Dear Ron Paul,
    Because too many dopers *only* want to put drugs in their systems and if you legalize it making it easy for them to do so, how do they earn a living? Keep a roof over their heads? Take care of their kids? As civilized people, we don’t want to have to step over some doper lying in the street while their child sits nearby perhaps doping herself up too. What will you do? You’d have to expand welfare way beyond anything Obama is doing to just take care of the doper’s kids! THINK IT THROUGH. It’s not just about legalizing drugs, it’s about dealing with the repercussions and there will be lots of those.

  203. teflonron says:

    Raw milk.

  204. Mary says:

    I support Paul for the most part, but not in this instance. You can see what smoking pot has done to our administration. They can’t make the right decision even if their very life depended on it.

  205. Iran Paul Pot says:

    Well, that locks in the liberal vote…

  206. FLOYD IN FLORIDA says:

    Tin foil Hats and Drugs for everybody!

  207. Walter says:

    Yeah. I used to believe that, too. And then I saw the societal and familial results of that sort of an attitude. See, if we were just lone folks living on an island and didn’t affect others, then that attitude would be great. Perfect. Wonderful.

    Sadly, we live in a society with other people all around us. Some of those folks are small and defenseless and belong to those people who want to put whatever they want into their bodies. We call those small people children.

    And then some other of those folks are big folks who have to pay the price for someone else putting whatever they want into his body. We call those people “victims of drunk drivers.”

    Now, sure, you can say, well, when those substance users harm others, we’ll punish them with jail and fines. And that’s all well and good. But some harms, like death, can’t be fixed with some jail time or some fines.

    So, we, as a society, have decided that the results of SOME substances being too freely obtained and used might potentially cause so much harm to society, in general, that we cannot allow those substances to be too freely available.

    That’s simple logic. It’s a simple understanding of how and why societies make laws.

    Why is it that a 76 year old man can’t figure this out? Hmmm?

    1. Andrew says:

      Whenever you appeal to society to limit the freedoms of your fellow citizens, you become a socialist. It’s in the word itself! I can only imagine you’re itching to outlaw that horrible drug called caffeine, not to mention the menace of nicotine…

      I do not like Ron Paul for his suicidal foreign policy, but he is absolutely correct on this issue. As individuals, our bodies are our first and only possession. We must be able to affect it however we choose should we have ANY foundation for our freedom.

    2. Walter says:

      @ Andrew — Wrong. but you should be used to that, it seems. A socialist is “one who practices or believes in the philosophy of socialism.”

      Socialism is “an economic system characterized by social ownership or control of the means of production and cooperative management of the economy, and a political philosophy advocating such a system.”

      I am a conservative. A conservatives is “one who practices or believes in the philosophy of conservatism.”

      Conservatism is “a political and social philosophy that promotes the maintenance of traditional institutions and supports, at the most, minimal and gradual change in society.”

      Not a word in there about society limiting freedoms EXCEPT insofar as those are “traditional institutions and supports” and “minimal and gradual change in society.”

      Now, you may not be aware of this, but drug laws have existed in some form or other for just about the entire existence of man. In this country, in particular, drug laws have waxed and waned, covering things like tobacco and cocaine and alcohol and heroin.

      So, since those drug laws are “”traditional institutions and supports” and since I favor any changes to them be “minimal and gradual,” not complete abolition, like you, Ron Paul and his Batpoop Crazy Brigade want, I am, indeed, a “conservative,” not a “socialist.”

      In point of fact, most socialists, certainly most left-leaners, which would include socialists, are, in fact, for looser drug laws.

      So, that makes YOU the one more closely aligned with socialists, not me.

      And, as for the menace of caffeine, that’s hilarious. Really so funny. You should take that act on the road. You’ll be a big, big hit, I’m sure.

      Caffeine overdoses don’t kill. Well, certainly not as surely as alcohol or cocaine or ecstasy or heroin overdoses. And the results of consuming too much caffeine or nicotine are nowhere like as devastating to individuals and societies as consuming too much alcohol, cocaine, ecstasy, heroin, or PCP.

      So, like all intelligent beings, I realize that every societal law is achieved by a dialogue that includes a risk-reward or cost-benefit calculation. Caffeine is less harmful than nicotine which is less harmful than alcohol which is less harmful than marijuana which is less harmful than cocaine, ecstasy, heroin, or PCP.

      Therefore, our society has decided to place increasingly stricter restrictions on the ability of those increasingly more dangerous substances to affect children and other adults who should not have to bear the cost up to and including death at the hands of someone under the influence of one of these substances.

      Now, that may seem the heights of tyranny, but that’s the way it’s been in this country since the days of our Founding Fathers and why I’m proud to call myself a conservative.

      Only a moron confuses reasonable restrictions to minimize societal costs with tyranny. Clearly, one of us knows how to read, think, and reason without resorting to wild-eyed claims of subjugation of essential liberties.

      You should really learn to read more.

      1. Mark says:

        Actually, all drugs were once legal in America with few restrictions. Where were the massive societal problems? They were few-and-far-between.

        The Founding Fathers believed in freedom. You should, too.

    3. Walter says:

      @ Andrew — Furthermore, I agree with you. Our bodies are our first and only possession. And you can exercise that freedom by arguing with me, by writing a pamphlet, by smoking cigarettes or drinking alcohol. You can even exercise it by doing cocaine, heroin, ecstasy, PCP, or marijuana. Really. Just go do it.

      But the rest of us have decided that the benefits of you getting to do that whenever you want, as much as you want is not worth the costs of you possibly driving around in your car and possibly maiming and killing folks or harming yourself in such a manner that the rest of us will have to pay for your care for the rest of your life.

      So, we decide that if you’re caught doing those things, you might lose the freedoms that you do have to go where you want, write what you want, argue with who you want, smoke cigarettes, or drink alcohol.

      Is it a perfect system? Absolutely not. But it’s the one that the rest of us have decided to live within because we think it’s reasonable to give up the freedom to do whatever, whenever in order to save suffering the cost of someone’s excess.

      Writing what you want, saying what you want, going where you want, all those are essential freedoms and nobody wants to give those up for a little temporary safety.

      But most of us don’t think that the ability to do X, coke, crystal, or heroin is an essential liberty and we don’t think that by giving up our “rights” to those we gain “a little temporary safety.” We think we gain a lot of more long-lasting safety.

      So, until you convince the majority otherwise or start your own country, you’re just stuck with not being able to shoot up and snort up or otherwise befoul that first and only possession that you seem to cherish so much … in theory.

      We all have just as much freedom as the rest of the people that we live with decide that we have. No more and no less. Sad, but true. Welcome to Earth!

      (Also, by the way, one who claims to be a “freedom lover” and “anti-socialist” should watch throwing around the phrase “first and only possession.” Property rights are considered a key, essential freedom by conservatives and non-socialists.)

      1. Kevin says:

        well said

  208. Jasonn says:

    Any cop will tell you about the pain misery that druggies inflict on members of their own family and the public in general. If Dr. Paul had worked in an ER instead of looking up women’s hoohoos all his life then he might have a different perspective.

  209. New York Nick says:

    “Why Can’t We ‘Put Into Our Body Whatever We Want?’”

    That’s the very same argument Barney Frank uses to substantiate his behavior. That’s such a dumb statement without context it’s not even worth addressing.

    Obviously there are tens of millions of Americans who need to be told what to put in their children’s breakfast bowl if momma or daddy can see it after a night of crackin’ and smackin’ all night long in da hood. THEY NEED TO BE TOLD>

    WE DON”T but that’s not stopping the Obamadinejad’s from lumping all Americans into ghetto level so they don’t hurt the feelings of 60% of their constituency by chucking PC and telling them all the truth for once. They’re the problem, not America.

  210. Bob says:

    We can’t put anything we want in our bodies because when we get sick everybody else has to pay for it. When we get too high to work, everybody else has to pay for it. Mistreating your own body doesn’t just harm yourself, it harms society.

    That being said, marijuana doesn’t even really harm the body and causes less medical cost than cigarettes and alcohol, so legalize it!

    1. Daisy says:

      You are dead wrong about marijuana being harmless. Call your local rehab center and make some intelligent inquiries if you want to understand how harmful it is.

      Having said that, Ron Paul is correct: The war on drugs needs to be called off. And no, I don’t want to pay for your addiction treatments. So you see, there can be natural consequences to your actions – if – we as a people are willing to allow them to occur.

  211. Barry bin Inhalin says:

    You should be able to do with/to your body anything until it either infringes on someone elses natural rights OR you become a useless blob and ward of the State. All the fun ends with gross irresponsibility and additcion generally leads there, quickly too….

  212. Bob says:

    We can’t put anything we want in our bodies because when we get sick everybody else has to pay for it. When we get too high to work, everybody else has to pay for it. Mistreating your own body doesn’t just harm yourself, it harms society.

    That being said, marijuana doesn’t even really harm the body and causes less medical cost than cigarettes and alcohol, so legalize it!

  213. Daisy says:

    Ron Paul is right about calling off the war on drugs. He’s right about any number of things — but he’s so completely off on foreign policy that I would never, ever, vote for him.

  214. Jeff Sheaffer says:

    Great, let’s add coke and reefer to our candy store of drugs ..I love dumb statements like:if we legalize it addiction and crime will go down”???!!! Yes just like in the Netherlands… they have .legal reefer and prositution and they have the HIGHEST suicide rate in the world! The person who opened fire on Dem Maggie Giffords was declared mentally UNFIT for trial why? he sufffered from schizophrenia from “recreation use of reefer

  215. JOSH.0 says:

    That would change the world over night TAKE ALL THE CORRUPT POWER OUT OF THE BANKERS HANDS IMMEDIATELY if you dont already know this my comment wont change your life but this tyranny rolling over us will INCLUDING ALL YOU SMART GUYS who think RON PAUL is crazy

  216. bound2drift says:

    There’s a very simple reason why the government won’t allow us to put whatever we want in our bodies. Because in a Socialist nanny-state, the government has to support your poor health and lack of productivity. The list of what’s not allowed is growing. The government has nearly criminalized tobacco, alcohol and trans-fat (whatever that is), and now they are taking jabs at salt and sugar.

  217. Brovo Sierra says:

    Vancouver IS NOT a suburb of Portland

  218. PATTY HENRY says:

    RON PAUL: As long as what you put in your body does NOT in any way effect me, my town, my police, my taxes, my neighbors, my kids etc. Knock yourself out.

  219. Richard Gere says:

    Does this include hard objects? hammers and power tools? how about live objects such as hamsters and penguins?

  220. Jason Y says:

    Ron Paul is wrong. What gives me the right to decide what I put in my body and how I spend the fruits of my labor? The government should be controlling and dictating my personal habits and how I spend my money — that is what freedom is all about. That is what we fought for in the American Revolution — so a strong centralized government can make these decisions for us. This is what our Constitution and Founding Fathers would have wanted for us…

  221. barefootjourney says:

    It is about more than drugs. The FDA just shut down an Amish Farmer (after 2+ years of trying) for selling Raw Milk across state lines. It is not the duty of the Federal Government to force upon us laws regarding what we do with our own bodies.

  222. beatcop says:

    I would agree with any of the “freedoms” everyone clamors for, If those wanting to exercise them would sign a form absolving the rest of society from taking care of them when things go bad. No helmet, no problem, hit a guardrail and medicaid / ss etc will not pay someone to spoon feed you for 50 years. Over dose, fry your brain and develop debilitating mental health issues, ditto. Smoke and get lung cancer- no help. Drink to excess= no transplants no ss no state sponsored medical care. Feel free to ingest whatever you want, but suffer the consequences quietly by yourselves.

  223. fmc says:

    I’d like to ask Ron Paul why I can’t I sell a poison labelled as food. After all, it’s a free county, isn’t it?

  224. Frank says:

    We the people are simply too stupid to make those decisions for ourselves. Thankfully the Government can come in and run our lives for us.

  225. NoBot says:

    Ladies and Gentleman, The fact is you NO LONGER HAVE A FUNCTIONING GOVERNMENT. You have a CORPORATOCRACY that decides through payouts what YOU will eat, drink and believe. I’m not any bot to any “party”. I wish everyone could come to the same realization through observation. You are being mocked by sociopaths calling you “Red or Blue”. Politics be damned, look at your enslavement since the 1950’s. Why do you keep voting for the same failures with failed promises? Greece is just around the corner…

  226. David says:

    Dear Sheeple,

    Speaking for all the Ron Paul supporters. Our main contention is that you have lost not only your minds, but your manhood. YOU are the ones who have been brainwashed into thinking freedom is bad for you. YOU are the ones who are okay getting the ol’ Sandusky at the airports. YOU are the one who thinks daddy goverenment is a good thing. YOU are the ones who jump on the string when the int’l bankers want to drive up the cost of oil, which they invested in before they decided to print more money, by starting another war in the middle east. YOU are the ones who cow-tow in fear at being politically incorrect. And YOU are the ones who stand here today and say you cannot assume in work or at play, responsibllity for your own few cubic feet of Flesh. So friends, lemmings, Sheeple, stop going Raymond Shaw on Paul supporters when it is obviously you who are both brainwashed and castrated into government eunochs!



  227. Sean Gerety says:

    The government should not be in the business of protecting people from themselves … nor should it in any way enable those who would harm themselves through the recreational or self-medicating use of drugs. Paul’s policies cover both. Ron Paul 2012!

  228. Zed says:

    Clearly it is time for revolution!

    Don’t discount this idea. Your forefathers would say “amen”.

  229. YouDude60 says:

    This is sickening.

    You are all shreddiong each other and/or defending your own turf and opinion, when the federal government is stealing from our kids by overreaching in virtually every aspect of our lives.

    Whether you support RP or not, take drugs or not, agree that drugs are harmful or not, what we’re aguing is the principle of freedom of self-determination and
    sel-reliance. With SD & SR we can be free to live however we want, even if others disagree.

    We need to unite to devolve federal power. Let the States make the decisions & let ther e be 50 unique experiments on what is and isn’t permitted. If that were to happen, we will never be closer to being completely free.

    SD & SR. Live free.

  230. Capn Jack says:

    The Problem is when they run out of money to support their habit, they turn to crime. If we could shoot any drug addicts that commit crimes, then i’m all for it.

  231. David says:


  232. Rich says:

    Wow, this is great David!


  233. JandJ says:

    Hey Ron Paul-bots (almost as weird as Obamabots)..if you put bad drugs into your body and drive you sometimes kill other nice innocent people, like a family of 5 heading to a beach vacation….you also usually slowly kill yourself, sometimes costing taxpayers an emormous amount of money, and in case of illegal drugs, you help the druglords who wreak havoc on civilization

    1. Elise says:

      So I assume you want to make alcohol illegal. Right?

  234. Karizmata says:

    @Rich Do not be deceived by the pro war drums, for any war that the government is involved in is simply to empower itself and disempower the people.

    There is a drug abuse problem in the USA. . . but it has been proven that the federal government is the goddammed pusherman. They are even bold enough to show it on main stream media (Geraldo interviewing the troops in charge of heroin production in Afghanistan) see Youtube vid.

    The feds are always causing problems so that they can show they can fix them, deserving the billions in taxes to pay for their expertise. How about the Fast & Furious gunwalking program…they are arming the Mexican drug cartels. Doesn’t that stink to high heavens?

  235. AAAAANDRE says:

    Death by Legally Prescribed Drugs.
    You can start here…
    And finish with the recent death of Whitney Houston.

  236. sand says:

    legalizing anything does not stop its use, and it sure wouldn’t stop the medical bills we pay for via the medi-cal and medicade system, why legalize? it wont save us NON USERS any money….

  237. Thomas says:


  238. Thomas says:

    Wow, this is truly amazing!!


  239. Malcolm Logan says:

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

    Why, Mr. Ru Paul? Because we are left with a non-functioning person whom we must pay for the rest of his or her life. Just like you. Damn glad this pinheaded idiot was never my Doctor. Makes you wonder what his success was at keeping his patients alive. He should love Obamacare, where we are all Units and old people aren’t fixed, just drugged up until they die. Just like Western Europe!

  240. Sally says:

    And why can’t women take out of their bodies whatever they want, like an unwanted pregnancy?

  241. Jason Ambrosino says:

    Ron Paul do us all a favor and drop out of the race. You dont have a chance of winning the nomination, your view points are on the fringe, and I dont trust you have a solid under standing of the global community…and quite frankly, I am getting sick of seeing, reading, and hearing about you. Stop wasting peoples money and bow out gracefully before Super Tuesday comes along and you are EMBARRASSED out of the race.

  242. Deborah Strole says:

    That is a “just plain stupid question” coming from a physician who knows that illicit drug usage leads to dependency which leads to abuse which leads to hurting your friends and family. FACT: Making drugs hard and expensive to obtain disccourages drug abuse. FACT: Most drug abuse is “self-medicating” by the abuser instead of the person getting out of “denial” and going to a real psych doctor who can put the person on the right drugs so the person can live a “normal” life. I know of what I speak; unfortunately I almost lost both of my grown children to meth, crack and cocaine before I even knew they were in trouble. After my intervention (boot-strap and demanding) both of the are clean and sober 6-years now. One has life long side effects, but that is the price she pays. RON PAUL IS AN IDIOT.

  243. Trommy says:

    It’s so funny how the message of freedom just gets comments like Ron Paul wants to legalize drugs. But the truth is Ron Paul wants to legalize Freedom and Liberty. What a concept!

  244. Matthew Dunnyveg says:

    I understand Paul’s point, and think it should apply to cannabis and possibly opiates. I will also say that stimulants, such as cocaine and the various amphetamines, including methamphetamine, can drive otherwise mentally healthy people into psychosis. Legalizing stimulants would be a disaster for society.

    Personal liberty obviously does not extend past the tip of the other fellow’s nose. It also shouldn’t be allowed to destroy what’s left of civil society.

  245. Matt says:

    I’m depressed by all the commenters here who have absolutely no idea what the word “freedom” means. I’ll bet the majority of people disagreeing with Paul have never cracked a history book, never read about the founding of this country, and have never bothered to understand that government has no authority over the individual. America is no longer a free country because of people like you… People who believe the government has a right to govern our bodies and minds. May the chains of servitude set lightly upon you, and may the boots of your masters taste sweet.

  246. Rationalist says:

    It’s not about what drug heads putting stuff in their own bodies – go for it. But it’s about the Einsteins that get all cooked up on something, and then go do something that affects someone else – you know, like driving, or go out to rob someone because they can’t afford what they want to put into their own body…. Then, it’s my tax dollars that have to patch up the damage at the local “free clinic”. RP is wrong here – certain laws are for the public good – and drug laws, are one of them

  247. denny says:

    Leave it up to our wonderful MEDIA to find unappealing ‘stock pictures’ of candidates they don’t like

  248. Htos1 says:

    Thank YOU!

  249. Brian says:

    Damn goody two shoes: for all those here so far that have advocated control on drugs….what do you think won’t stop the feds from next regulating what we can/can’t eat? Because as you all know food is just as addicting as any drug. It’s a slippery slope and you know it. If I want to do what ever drug, so be it…if I want to eat whatever I want, so be it…if I want to jump off a cliff, so be it. For anyone here that is for controlling personal drug use then to be intellectually consistant (not a hypocrite), then you have to say there should be a ban on all alcohol consumption. I have done this with many anti drug/pro alcohol people and their arguments just start breaking down. It’s amazes me the hypocrites that have no problem with people getting lit on alcohol but…oh dare someone touches some weed.

  250. doc says:

    This is the one issue Ron Paul owns. He is absolutely correct. Prohibition doesn’t end because Nothing empowers Big Government like Prohibition. I get a big kick out of Conservatives like Rush Limbaugh, Mark Levin, Sean Hannity, Bill O’reilley and many others who often invoke the names of the Great Conservative Icons like Bill Buckley, Milton Friedman, Friedrich Hayek, Ayn Rand, and Berry Goldwater but never mention that All these great Conservatives supported Legalization of Drugs as the best way to solve the Drug Problem.

  251. smith says:

    Look at Portugal. 50% reduction in drug use since it has been legalized.

  252. Kinabru says:

    Because putting drugs into your body usually will make that person not able to work and to become unhealthy, they then go on the dole, taxpayers will have to pay for them. We live in a society where what members of that society do affect others then that behavior should be stopped. Ron Paul should qualify his statement.

  253. Tommy Jeffer's Son says:

    Let the states sort it out! A looming dictatorial federal government was NOT the intention of the Founders.

  254. jeff says:

    You can pout whatever you want in your body. just don’t let the food poplice catch you eating something unhealthy. Like a banana or turkey sandwich.

  255. Bill says:

    Fine, but it is done with the proviso that any medical treatment for a person’s use of drugs is not eligible for gov’t or insurance payment, and for any criminal act, accident damage, the seller of the drug is equally liable.

  256. craguilar says:

    Government should not be in the business of banning anything that is “detrimental to society”. Otherwise it should ban out-of-wedlock babies and MTV. Government exists to protect individual rights —to prevent people from comitting violent acts against each other.

    Drugs being harmful to society does not mean that one person taking drugs or even selling drugs (as part of a free and voluntary exchange) is comitting violence against others. Therefore taking, buying or selling drugs should not be illegal.

    Furthermore, while it may be true that legalizing drugs will increase consumption somewhat (although not nearly to the apocalyptic level predicted by the prohibitionists) and therefore there will be social costs, these are not nearly as great as the cost of the war on drugs. Look at the statistics. How many people are incarcerated for non-violent drug offenses? In Mexico, over 50,000 people have been killed in the last 3 years solely because of the drug war. Guatemala, El Salvador and Honduras have some of the highest crime rates in the world because of the drug war which is dictated by the United States No wonder the presidents down there are starting to debate legalization, even though those are culturally very conservative countries.

    People need to listen to Ron Paul and stop taking for granted the drug mythology they have been fed by an establishment with a vested interest in keeping the drug war going.

  257. Mary says:

    We should be able to put the food we want into our own mouths, too. No food police!

  258. WhoisJohnGalt says:

    The real question is Do we own ourselves?

  259. dave says:

    The Partnership for a Drugfree America was originally, primarily funded by Phillip Morris, RJ Reynolds, Anheuser-Busch, Bristol Meyers-Squibb and Merck & Company.

    Cigarettes, booze and pills. The drugs that do nothing for you!

  260. newjerseybt says:

    Why Can’t We ‘Put Into Our Body Whatever We Want? Because kids like to do stupid things like overdose and kill themselves like my teenage nephew did Mr. Paul!! What does it mean to you that an individual has the right to put a bullet or drugs into their brain and leave a family in agony and financial loss because THEY wanted to exercise their “rights” to do so? And then society has the burden to support what is left of a family. It comes down to morals Mr. Paul. And junkies have little power to reason with chemicals in their brain Mr. Paul and still need to finance their drug habit no matter how cheap drugs become. And when they break into my house at 3:00 AM for that little bit of money because they are hooked and unemployable, I then might have to shoot them to protect my family and then MY life becomes a nightmare Mr. Paul. Drugs are cheaper than ever in Mexico and the U.S. but still thousands die in turf wars. Mr. Paul you need to grow up in our real world and stop trying to channel Timothy Leary!!!

  261. Jaco says:

    The argument that legalizing drugs would run up our health care costs is naive. At worst it is revenue neutral. We already pay to house, cloth, and feed prisoners… pay huge sums of money for DEA, prisons, states attorneys, judges, and miss out on taxing the drugs that are sold.

    I watched a co-worker, who grew pot, loose his job, pay thousands in fines, spend time in jail, almost lost his marriage and his house because he grew pot. None of his problems were because the ill effects of the pot itself, all of it was because it was illegal.

  262. B C says:

    Well, of course he must be nutty if he’s advocating that people be free to do what they want. BTW, he also advocates that people are solely responsible for their own actions. Meaning, they cannot impose the cost of their folly on the rest of us. Now that’s just good common sense.

    I think he’s the only one that is not nutty.

  263. Bruno says:

    Use all the drugs you want but understand that the government will not provide nor will private insurers provide any care once you ruin your life. free choice and natural selection at work.

  264. ObayJuan says:

    This is still fodder for arguments?!? What year is this?

    There is a big difference between de-criminalizing something and unconditionally legalizing it as well as having the feds control it verses the states controlling it.

    Making a substance legal doesn’t mean unconditional legal. For example, beer is legal but not for minors.

    I know some will argue that minors still get beer and it is true that some minors will always find a way. But from my experience, growing up in Decatur, AL, in a dry county, where alcohol was not sold in stores, there were bootleggers on nearly every block that openly sold booze to anyone with the money, anyone of any age. We had a form of prohabition in our county, that forbid all alcohol sales to anyone, which in turn opened the doors for corrupted officials to work alcohol trafficing and reap all the profits for themselves. We had a very high teenage alcoholism rate, abnormally high rates, because teens could buy booze anytime, day or night. My neighbor (now dead) used to mow lawns for his spending money and would mow the sheriff’s lawn, take his money to the bootlegger living next door to the sheriff and buy his beer at age 12. This practice is alive and well in America today, only it is pot the bootleggers now sell and it is controlled by the same people who arrest you for having it. Think!

  265. Nothosaur says:

    I agree with his statement regarding drugs, but he chose a ridiculous, absurd line to make his point: “…why is it we can’t put into our body whatever we want?”

    “WHATEVER” you want!??!? Obviously there are substances, which, if put into your body, can negatively affect other people. This for example:

  266. Wake Up says:

    Twist and Spin Tactics?
    Ron Paul DOES NOT support the usage of drugs!!!
    What he was talking about was anything but drugs.
    (Vaccines,Food, etc…)
    Yes, he is for legalizing drugs to STOP the profiteering from private companies running our over populated prisons with non criminal acts.
    There are other reasons he has for legalizing drugs but NOT because he endorses drug use.
    He is a doctor after all.
    Try not to twist and spin what he says. I saw nothing in his quote about drugs.
    Only in your flawed and deceptive reporting.
    I am sure he is a terrorist too because he is against unconstitutional wars with your logic of thinking……………

  267. Kevin Stowell says:

    Because the adults in our society know that vegetables anywhere but in their gardens or on their plates are problematic. Any questions?

  268. Wake Up says:

    Why are the order of comments and time not in a sequential order?
    I despise deception and this media is VERY misleading in both this article and the comments.
    Feel free to spin Ron Paul words and shuffle the comment cards to your liking.
    But remember why your ratings are so low compared to other organizations that conduct themselves by the code of accurate reporting.
    We have Obama “truth squad going after media reporting the truth about him. to cover up his failed policies and continual lying to his supposed employers the people.
    But nothing against media like this who twist and spin lies.

  269. Dan says:

    Umm…because then 99% of democrats will HIGH 100% of the time, and guess who has to pay the bill?

  270. Mauibrad says:

    ‘Cause them we might get back control of ourselves and what the human race is capable of. This isn’t about drugs. This is about control of what the human race is capable of.

  271. Kauaibrad says:

    ‘Cause then we might get back control of ourselves and what the human race is capable of. This isn’t about drugs. This is about control of what the human race is capable of.

  272. andrew says:

    that’s what she said

  273. Dave says:

    If the government dissolved any and every taxpayer funded rehabilation, recovery, healthcare, housing and shelter, mental health. . .basically every social program. . .I’m all for the legalization of anything your heart desires. . .bring it on. . . .knock yourself out..

  274. Bill says:

    The Federal Government has started many unconstitutional wars while at the same time generating huge profits for it’s crony partners in crime against American citizens and the peoples of the world. Wars such as”
    The war against drugs
    The war against cancer
    The war against crime
    The war against terrorism
    The war against poverty
    Not to mention all he wars perpetrated to monopolize the global currency system with Federal Reserve Notes
    And all he wars started to overthrow and prevent democratically elected countries from establishing and using alternative currencies in their oil markets.

  275. Dharma says:

    The only rule we need is the Golden Rule (Common Law). Our governments have no business punishing people for anything unless someone else is harmed by what they do to them. You own your body, and the Governments have no business telling you what you can do with it, unless you use it to violate others sovereign rights. Our God-given rights are at stake here, and punishment for victimless crimes is an affront to our free wills. Little by little, we have let our governments take away our rights to free choice, and it is way past time to abolish these freedom suppressing Draconian laws. If you need someone to keep you in line, then you need to grow up, or get some help. We are all responsible for ourselves and each others’ well-being. All you need is love. Ron Paul for President!

  276. Dave says:

    BJ the moron gets his pseudo-facts from Bill O’Reilly.

  277. Flame says:

    Dr. Paul makes a very good point. The problem with his position is that, in the case of drugs that are now illegal, they often alter our physical condition as much or more than excessive alcohol. Most people living today have been conditioned to believe that access to opiates (in particular) and other “recreational” drugs would turn a certain segment of our population into instant raging stoners. None of us is old enough to recall when opium could be bought at the local drug store or that Edgar Allen Poe was a frequent user. He gave us some exceptional literature. Of course, he also wasn’t barreling down a super highway in a lethal weapon with “300 horses” under the hood.

    Many who are alive today do remember and admire jazz drummer Gene Krupa, who, I’ve been told, was a regular user of marijuana, but I never heard of him prosecuted for it as he would be today.

    That said, if we phased in legal drugs over perhaps 3 years with an intensive education campaign showing the effects of drugs on the brain and nervous system and making some stringent limitations on what people could do under the influence—comparable to the requirement that airline pilots wait 8 hours after consuming alcohol before flying—and setting very stringent penalties for any harm or damages caused while under the influence, we might be able to persuade those who are horrified at the very idea of legalizing drugs.

    Most responsible people would not suddenly go out and take up heroine. Once available, much of the novelty would wear off. Smoking pot would probably be immediately regulated as tobacco now is such that you couldn’t smoke inside most buildings or within so many feet of entrances or windows where the smoke can drift. Those laws are already in place.

    If taxed, these substances would bring in revenue—not mine, mind you, because I wouldn’t be taking it up.

    It would do much to destroy the criminal enterprise that drug trafficking is today.

    Finally, there’s another benefit. Those of us who believe in natural means to treat disease might finally be allowed freedom to use substances that do not get the approval of the AMA, FDA and Big Pharma, including things like raw milk or hemp protein and oil. This could have a major beneficial impact on the cost of staying healthy. Of course Big Pharma wouldn’t like it, because it would cut into their bottom line—which is precisely why these substances are not readily available today.

    Disclaimer: I am Ron Paul’s age, a non-smoker, and my alcohol is pretty much limited to communion wine.

  278. James says:

    Ron Paul will never win. He stands to much for exactly what Americans are against…..true freedom. Americans want to dictate how others live across the nation rather than on a local community level. Americans think America is the only way. Americans are no better than Muslims, since AMericans also side wars based solely on religion and race.

    Americans are the biggest joke to walk this planet. A bunch of fat, ignorant, stoopid morons. They believe anything they are told, and are like children.

    Drugs? Who cares? If you want to do them, knock yourself out. I think youre stupid for doing them and will not associate with you, but it is YOUR RIGHT. But most Americans cannot handle the thought of others doing what they dont agree with. What a bunch of selfish idiots. What a joke we are. Now lets all re-elect the HalfFrican or Santorum…..lets all do what we are told to do. Its the American way 😉

    1. kenh says:

      James: with an attitude like yours, there is no hope for any of us, so any bother. How do you get through life?

  279. Jam says:

    If you want to hate drugs, drug usage, and drug users that is all fine in my book, but I draw the line when you want to use the government to threaten violence and incagement in order to better people. Forget that, and conservatives of all people should know that. Let cops keep the peace, and the righteous private citizens use the power of knowledge and truth to lead others to live a holy life.

  280. D.V.K. says:

    Hippies from the 60;s,(like myself),were right in .all the things we were saying about the government .we were not listened to because the plans the govt were making were not affecting the normal person on the street yet.well how do you like them that your freedoms have been sqashed,& now that our govt. is big brother?PEACE,& THE RULE OF LAW,& ADHERANCE TO OUR CONSTITUTION,is what made america great.Not big brother.

  281. blockbuster movies new releases says:

    I just like the valuable info you provide to your articles. I’ll bookmark your weblog and test once more here frequently. I am somewhat certain I will be informed many new stuff right right here! Best of luck for the next!

  282. Makita Akkuschrauber says:

    I am extremely inspired along with your writing talents as neatly as with the layout to your blog. Is this a paid subject matter or did you modify it yourself? Anyway keep up the nice high quality writing, it’s rare to look a great blog like this one today..

Leave a Reply

Please log in using one of these methods to post your comment:

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.