Crime set to increase.

[tbubster]

There are so many things wrong with this and some of the thinking on here its sad really.Try telling a 10 year old kid who just had his XBOX stolen that it is ok because it was for someone elses LIBERTY.Try telling the wife whos husband was robbed and killed for the 20 dollars in his wallet that it was for someone elses LIBERTY so its ok her husband did not die in vain.Tell the many doctors and nurses that have to take care of the 2.6 pound new born baby that is surffering from addiction thats its ok because its all in the name of LIBERTY.Tell that to the mom/dad that just had to IDENTIFY their runaway son/daughter that they have not seen in 5-10 years that died of an overdose that it will be ok because it was their LIBERTY.Tell a mother whos six year old was playing on the side walk and was shot and killed by a crackhead during a robbery to get money for his next fix.That their child died im the name of LIBERTY.These are not the worst case scenarios these are things that happen every day because of peoples addictions to deadly drugs and making them legal will not solve the problem it will only make them worse.

Ron paul is a medical doctor and for him to make the claim that if CRACK,cocaine and heroin were legal that nobody would use them is shamefull.He knows better then that and this is just one of the reasons why I see him as no different then the rest of them.(candidates looking for votes)See what the good DR Paul knows is that these drugs are in fact highly addicitive.Crack and heroin for many people all it takes is one hit and life as they and their familys know it is over.To me the make it legal and you solve the problem is no different then make guns illegal and you make the world a safer place crap.


I have said it befor.If in giving someone LIBERTY it takes away some one elses,it is not LIBERTY at all and you are all smart enough to know this.Its funny really when people talk about the counstitution and the founding fathers and LIBERTY.Many twist it all to fit what they think it means.Its like many want everyone else to belive that the founding fathers did not belive in LAW AND ORDER and felt everyone had the RIGHT to do as they pleased because after all it would have been taking away someones LIBERTY to pass a law not allowing them to do as they pleased.You see no one can make the argument that some one doing drugs only hurts them because it does not.The good DR.Paul knows this.

 

[tbubster]

Let's say for the sake of discussion that starting tomorrow, cocaine, heroine, crystal meth, opium, and pot are declared legal. Let's also say that the US Govt will not get involved with the manufacture and sale of all this stuff (I know that's a stretch), so free market will control the availability, price, supply & demand - anyone with an entrepreneurial spirit can get into this industry legally. Of course there will be areas of the country where nothing will change because the gangs and drug cartels will continue to operate business as usual, not allowing any competition. However, in most areas the availability goes up dramatically and the price goes down. What are the consequences of that? Let's also stipulate - considering we're allowing everyone the freedom to fail - there will be no taxpayer funded bailouts, rehab programs, clinics, etc. In other words, if you're a drug addict you're on your own unless you can get help from the local churches or good Samaritan organizations that operate on private funds. We won't even get into the cost effect this will have on health insurance, to say nothing of property insurance and the rest of that industry. My point is that there would be a lot of unintended consequences that aren't being taken into account or that are totally unpredictable if hard drugs are legalized. The status quo isn't perfect my any means, but it's better than total legalization.

Of course some states would continue to make these drugs illegal, and the cost of law enforcement would have a direct impact on their taxpayers due to the lack of federal subsidies (Paul is decriminalizing only at the federal level). Any states that would go along with the federal legalization would probably become safe havens for the drug users and manufacturers, and create problems for their neighboring states.

The bottom line is that in spite of all the good ideas that Ron Paul promotes, it's his positions on these few areas like drugs and foreign policy that have made him unelectable to national office. His ideas sound good in theory but just won't work in the real world.

No government involvement think of the gang wars.People think mexico is bad.

 

[OntarioVanMan]

There are so many things wrong with this and some of the thinking on here its sad really.Try telling a 10 year old kid who just had his XBOX stolen that it is ok because it was for someone elses LIBERTY.Try telling the wife whos husband was robbed and killed for the 20 dollars in his wallet that it was for someone elses LIBERTY so its ok her husband did not die in vain.Tell the many doctors and nurses that have to take care of the 2.6 pound new born baby that is surffering from addiction thats its ok because its all in the name of LIBERTY.Tell that to the mom/dad that just had to IDENTIFY their runaway son/daughter that they have not seen in 5-10 years that died of an overdose that it will be ok because it was their LIBERTY.Tell a mother whos six year old was playing on the side walk and was shot and killed by a crackhead during a robbery to get money for his next fix.That their child died im the name of LIBERTY.These are not the worst case scenarios these are things that happen every day because of peoples addictions to deadly drugs and making them legal will not solve the problem it will only make them worse.

Ron paul is a medical doctor and for him to make the claim that if CRACK,cocaine and heroin were legal that nobody would use them is shamefull.He knows better then that and this is just one of the reasons why I see him as no different then the rest of them.(candidates looking for votes)See what the good DR Paul knows is that these drugs are in fact highly addicitive.Crack and heroin for many people all it takes is one hit and life as they and their familys know it is over.To me the make it legal and you solve the problem is no different then make guns illegal and you make the world a safer place crap.


I have said it befor.If in giving someone LIBERTY it takes away some one elses,it is not LIBERTY at all and you are all smart enough to know this.Its funny really when people talk about the counstitution and the founding fathers and LIBERTY.Many twist it all to fit what they think it means.Its like many want everyone else to belive that the founding fathers did not belive in LAW AND ORDER and felt everyone had the RIGHT to do as they pleased because after all it would have been taking away someones LIBERTY to pass a law not allowing them to do as they pleased.You see no one can make the argument that some one doing drugs only hurts them because it does not.The good DR.Paul knows this.

Nice...but they aren't letting killers out....

 

[tbubster]

Nice...but they aren't letting killers out....

They dont have to.people who do these drugs turn in to some of the killers.The examples I gave happen every day in this country and people say because I am a crack head I robbed that guy and the gun went off by mistake.Roll your eyes all you want,go to any inner city soup kitchen or any inner city shelter or better yet go to any big city and sit in the drug court for one day and you see the effects of these drugs on people and not just the people doing them.

 

[clcooper]

either way if legal or illegal . it is a business and they need to make a profit . because they work hard to make the drugs . work hard to sell it .

make the drugs legal that way the mass graves dont look as bad as if you lined the people up and shot them .

how many movie stars , sports players been caught with drugs and never got any jail time. but the have nots get 15 years .

 

[OntarioVanMan]

They dont have to.people who do these drugs turn in to some of the killers.The examples I gave happen every day in this country and people say because I am a crack head I robbed that guy and the gun went off by mistake.Roll your eyes all you want,go to any inner city soup kitchen or any inner city shelter or better yet go to any big city and sit in the drug court for one day and you see the effects of these drugs on people and not just the people doing them.

so lets ASSUME all crackheads are possible killers and do a preemptive strike and toss them in jail because they will kill someone?...even the corporate jet set kind and keep them in prison for an unreasonable amount of time....

Coke in its day was thought to be the same and then came meth/speedfreeks.....and they live among us...

 

[OntarioVanMan]

either way if legal or illegal . it is a business and they need to make a profit . because they work hard to make the drugs . work hard to sell it .

make the drugs legal that way the mass graves dont look as bad as if you lined the people up and shot them .

how many movie stars , sports players been caught with drugs and never got any jail time. but the have nots get 15 years .

Good point...the street kid gets 15 yrs and the star gets community service.....that is equal treatment under the law...

 

[clcooper]

as long as they can make money from drugs . they will not change anything .

just like in the Prohibition . who made the money .

 

[Turtle]

The fallacy is that if hard drugs were legal, then the numbers of hard drug users would rise dramatically. One can use alcohol, Prohibition and Repeal, as an historical guide. I don't do heroin or cocaine, for example, not because it is illegal, but because I do not want to. If I wanted to partake, the illegality of it would not deter me. If heroin and cocaine were suddenly legalized, regardless of the price, I still would not want to.

The thought of legalized hard drugs does not entice me in any way. Pot is illegal, albeit it de facto legal in many places, and I don't smoke it. Never have. But it's certainly not because it's illegal, it's because I don't want to. If I wanted to, I would. It's certainly readily available. Alcohol is perfectly legal, and I don't drink. Never have. The legality of alcohol has never once tempted me to drink.

People are people, and the same people who do illegal drugs would do them if they were legal, and the same people who do not do them now would not start doing them solely because they are legal.

However, an argument can be made, in fact, that the temptation of the illicit, the taboo, is enough to have some people use drugs who would otherwise not. An unintended consequence of making drugs illegal? Possibly.

Just because people are allowed to fail doesn't necessarily mean they must be left on their own. People fail with hard drugs, despite the illegality, and there are both public and private groups which provide assistance. We allow people to fail with legal alcohol, and there are both public and private groups which provide assistance. There is no difference, other than the legality of the failure. The world has a long history of both legal and illegal drug use, with the unintended consequences of both being well documented and very predictable.

I maintain that people should be allowed the liberty of making their own decisions, rather than have someone else make decisions for them. People should be allowed to put whatever they want into their bodies, be it heroin or alcohol, fatback or tattoo ink, and then live, or die, with the consequences.

If you look at the history of drug prohibitions, nearly every law prohibiting drugs is based in religion, either from a morality angle or out of sheer religious intolerance. Alcohol and other intoxicants are prohibited by Sharia law, mostly as a means of control, although hashish smoking is fine. In the 11th and 12th centuries, religious intolerance within Muslims resulted in Egyptian laws prohibiting Sufis from eating hashish, which were later broadened to include smoking it and then growing it. For Sufis only, tho. Coffee was regarded as a Muslim drink and it's use by Christians were prohibited in its native Ethiopia until the late 1800s. The introduction of coffee into Europe from Muslim Turkey resulted in short-lived laws against it, decrying it to be the Devil's work. Once the Pope drank coffee, however, it was just too delicious to have outlawed.The Cristian invaders of Meso-America and South America outlawed peyote and other sacred plants of the culture as being works of the Devil. The very first law in the US to prohibit a specific drug was in 1875 San Francisco, where opium was made illegal because, "many women and young girls, as well as young men of respectable family, were being induced to visit the Chinese opium-smoking dens, where they were ruined morally and otherwise." It didn't take long for additional laws to be enacted prohibiting drugs, many from religious objections, others had racial or monetary motivations. Today, drug laws are still largely about money (mostly tax revenue) and religious intolerance and morality.

The number of people in jail solely for drug-related offenses is ridiculous, more so because of the ridiculous amount of money required to feed and house them. The amount of money spent fighting a wholly unwinnable Drug War is even more ridiculous, especially considering the epic failure thus far. That money can be put to far better use, and those fighting the war can make better use of their time. I won't even get into the "collateral" damage of innocent civilians killed while getting into the crossfire of the War on Drugs (there's a Web site that keeps track of it, tho).

 

[paullud]

Some people might want to look into why they had federal charges instead of state, these are distributors not users.

Posted with my Droid EO Forum App

 

[paullud]

15 years for a little bit of crack?...that is nuts....this is a good thing.....meth, coke, crack are all dangerous drugs and could make some do whacky things....the sentences should of been equal....

The reason they were not was the violence that is associated with crack sales.

Posted with my Droid EO Forum App

 

[layoutshooter]

The FEDERAL government has NO business in the "drug thing". The USE of drugs should be decriminalisd. PUSHERS should be shot.

Making your own whiskey should not be illegal. There should also be NO restrictions on the amounts of wine or beer one makes.

ALL of this is about revenue. Nothing more. Even the drug prohibitions is solely about revenue. It is about making money for lawyers and the prison industry.

 

[OntarioVanMan]

The reason they were not was the violence that is associated with crack sales.

Posted with my Droid EO Forum App

Suppose we should separate the issues....Pushers and users...

 

[layoutshooter]

Suppose we should separate the issues....Pushers and users...

I DID! I said, NO criminal penalty for USE. Shoot pushers. ALSO, supporting your habit is NO excuse for committing ANY crime. Neither is being under the influence. That includes BOOZE as well drugs.

 

[OntarioVanMan]

I DID! I said, NO criminal penalty for USE. Shoot pushers. ALSO, supporting your habit is NO excuse for committing ANY crime. Neither is being under the influence. That includes BOOZE as well drugs.

Ok..I just wanted to be sure we were on the same wave length...don't blow a gasket....LOL

 

[layoutshooter]

Ok..I just wanted to be sure we were on the same wave length...don't blow a gasket....LOL

LOL!! My gaskets are FRAGILE at my age!


ALSO if ANYONE is SO STUPID to become addicted to what are now illegal drugs, booze, cigarettes etc, keep this in mind, YOUR rehab is in NO WAY MY responsibility.

There is a problem with some LEGAL drugs that are legally prescribed. That should be between the doctor and the person involved.

 

[Turtle]

Some people might want to look into why they had federal charges instead of state, these are distributors not users.

They had federal charges because of the Interstate Commerce Clause. Early on, the American judicial system did not accept drug prohibition laws, because the laws violated the liberties of citizens. Prosecutors argued that possessing drugs was a tax violation, as no legal licenses to sell drugs were in existence (Harrison Act, 1914, required sellers of opiates and cocaine to have a license). Therefore, a person possessing drugs must have purchased them from an unlicensed source. After some much legal wrangling, this was accepted as federal jurisdiction under the Interstate Commerce Clause of the Constitution. It's why, even after and despite being legalized in the Humbolt region and other regions of California, ATF agents raided marijuana growers and sellers (because some of that pot might cross state lines <snort>).

Laws have been written so that, more or less, the amount of illegal drugs you possess makes the difference between "simple possession" and the thought crime of "possession with the intent to distribute". In the case of cocaine and heroin, the latter comes into play if you possess more than you can use immediately. So if you want to save some for later, you're a distributor, even if you aren't a distributor.

 

[OntarioVanMan]

Sorry just comments that crack users well any addicted user be it even LEGAL alcohol...are accountable for violent crime and should all be locked up....poverty accounts for violent crime as well....should we lock up poor people too? ...

 

[scottm4211]

Just kill everyone. I'm tired.

 

[OntarioVanMan]

Just kill everyone. I'm tired.

you must be tired all the time....you can't seem to type more then one line at a time......hehehehe