Ron Paul to Bill Maher: America's War on Drugs must end

reply to post by Amaterasu



HFCS is artificial, meaning that you're better off not making rather than making it and telling people, "No no, don't touch." Labelling on cigarettes hasn't deterred anybody from using it.

My point is that not everybody starts smoking because they were born itching for a nicotine fix.

That's exactly what legal marijuana would do.

The current Constitution isn't even the original Constitution drafted by the Founding Fathers. Do the research.
LOL legalizing marijuana is not going to outlaw Homeland Security or stop the NSA from reading your email

Originally posted by Reddupo
Here is a table showing different countries and cannabis use medicine.plosjournals.org.../journal.pmed.0050141&id=14269&ct=1 (Fixed Link)

Showing Japan at a mere 1.5% of the population. That's super low.

What do we know about the methods used in compiling this data?

I mean... It could be way off, depending... (Did they use a calculation based on arrests, for example...?)

Originally posted by vcwxvwligen
reply to post by Amaterasu

 

HFCS is artificial, meaning that you're better off not making rather than making it and telling people, "No no, don't touch." Labelling on cigarettes hasn't deterred anybody from using it.

My point is that not everybody starts smoking because they were born itching for a nicotine fix.

That's exactly what legal marijuana would do.

What??? Do give the sources you are using that bring you to conclude this. Oh, that's right. You don't offer sources. You just make outrageous claims and then ignore requests for sources. Very trollish of you.

The current Constitution isn't even the original Constitution drafted by the Founding Fathers. Do the research.

To what point? Why, in other words?

LOL legalizing marijuana is not going to outlaw Homeland Security or stop the NSA from reading your email

You are becoming incoherent. What has this to do with anything at all?

Originally posted by Amaterasu

Originally posted by vcwxvwligen
reply to post by Amaterasu

 

HFCS is artificial, meaning that you're better off not making rather than making it and telling people, "No no, don't touch." Labelling on cigarettes hasn't deterred anybody from using it.

My point is that not everybody starts smoking because they were born itching for a nicotine fix.

That's exactly what legal marijuana would do.

What??? Do give the sources you are using that bring you to conclude this. Oh, that's right. You don't offer sources. You just make outrageous claims and then ignore requests for sources. Very trollish of you.

The current Constitution isn't even the original Constitution drafted by the Founding Fathers. Do the research.

To what point? Why, in other words?

LOL legalizing marijuana is not going to outlaw Homeland Security or stop the NSA from reading your email

You are becoming incoherent. What has this to do with anything at all?

Any decent search will provide support for my claims.

The Constitution was changed so that the "UNITED STATES" could conform to international maritime law. The Federal Reserve Act was passed fraudulently. The related Constitutional amendment was never ratified, although the bankers spread a false rumor that it was.

It seems like you're tying in legalization with some rant about the increasing restriction of Americans' civil liberties.

Originally posted by vcwxvwligen
Any decent search will provide support for my claims.

Cool. Then it should be easy for you to provide them. Don't expect me to put forth that effort. YOU're the one making the claims.

The Constitution was changed so that the "UNITED STATES" could conform to international maritime law. The Federal Reserve Act was passed fraudulently. The related Constitutional amendment was never ratified, although the bankers spread a false rumor that it was.

Yes. What has this to do with anything?

It seems like you're tying in legalization with some rant about the increasing restriction of Americans' civil liberties.

No.... You said HFCS and cigarettes should be illegal. I disagreed. It seems like you're obfuscating.

Originally posted by Amaterasu

Originally posted by vcwxvwligen
Any decent search will provide support for my claims.

Cool. Then it should be easy for you to provide them. Don't expect me to put forth that effort. YOU're the one making the claims.

The Constitution was changed so that the "UNITED STATES" could conform to international maritime law. The Federal Reserve Act was passed fraudulently. The related Constitutional amendment was never ratified, although the bankers spread a false rumor that it was.

Yes. What has this to do with anything?

It seems like you're tying in legalization with some rant about the increasing restriction of Americans' civil liberties.

No.... You said HFCS and cigarettes should be illegal. I disagreed. It seems like you're obfuscating.

It has already become apparent that people here are willing to cite sources disingenuously.

You said something about "for the People, by the people, and of the people" which reflects an inaccurate perspective.

If you disagree, that's fine. I can probably imagine why.

Originally posted by vcwxvwligen

Originally posted by Amaterasu

Originally posted by vcwxvwligen
Any decent search will provide support for my claims.

Cool. Then it should be easy for you to provide them. Don't expect me to put forth that effort. YOU're the one making the claims.

The Constitution was changed so that the "UNITED STATES" could conform to international maritime law. The Federal Reserve Act was passed fraudulently. The related Constitutional amendment was never ratified, although the bankers spread a false rumor that it was.

Yes. What has this to do with anything?

It seems like you're tying in legalization with some rant about the increasing restriction of Americans' civil liberties.

No.... You said HFCS and cigarettes should be illegal. I disagreed. It seems like you're obfuscating.

It has already become apparent that people here are willing to cite sources disingenuously.

Foolish me for asking, since you ignore such requests, but please proove that these posters are citing things disingenuously.

You said something about "for the People, by the people, and of the people" which reflects an inaccurate perspective.

If you disagree, that's fine. I can probably imagine why.

Whatever, dude. Again (for the 10th or 15th time) you provide nothing to support your views.

Originally posted by Amaterasu

Originally posted by vcwxvwligen

It has already become apparent that people here are willing to cite sources disingenuously.

Foolish me for asking, since you ignore such requests, but please proove that these posters are citing things disingenuously.

Whatever, dude. Again (for the 10th or 15th time) you provide nothing to support your views.

People are citing a website multiple times for pro-marijuana stories, even though those websites contain both pro and con stories. That is attempting to present the sources such that they appear to fully support the use of marijuana, which is not only a lie of omission but an appeal to authority.

If it concerns you so much, then do the research with an objective viewpoint instead of a predetermined agenda.

reply to post by Amaterasu


Its pointless with that guy.

His arguments are completely biased, he never has proof to back any of his claims up, and he goes off on tangents about god knows what.

Its best to steer clear of him.

I don't mind discussing this intelligently, but unfortunately people who can't think for themselves, can't distinguish a weed that grows in the ground from anthrax. It's absolutely a dumb-ass point of view that we
should incarcerate people for growing a weed. I still smoke the occasional cigarette. Oh, I forgot, that just gives you cancer, and it's legal. Go to the market and buy herbal tea. They call it herbal, but it's basically from a bunch of different weeds that grow wild.
That we have to resort to "studies" to legitimize our arguments, because they're received from some sort of fact giving oracle is rather sophomoric as well. Point in case: alcohol, tobacco, firearms, glue, pharmaceutical drugs, etc.
We all know that there's a lot of stuff in this world that might be bad for you. But as long as it's "legal " it passes the smell test.
Down through history, all sorts or stuff has been legal, illegal, and legal again. The question is who is being protected? Am I being protected by not being tempted by illegal items. Or protected because they are legal,
( i.e. alcohol, tobacco, pharmaceutical drugs etc.) And who is making money from legality or illegallity? That's what the argument should be about. Not how much THC is in a joint. Who cares. How much alcohol is in a fifth of whiskey? I'ts ALL ABOUT THE MONEY. Nothing more and nothing less.

reply to post by penguinsonarock


You are absolutely on the mark. The primary reason for continued illegality is due to the almighty dollar. Take the "Partnership for a Drug Free America" for example. It's primary financial backers were Alcohol, Tobacco, and Pharmaceutical companies until 1997 when they were found out. Now since alcohol and tobacco can't contribute the Pharmaceutical companies are it's largest contributor. Alcohol and Tobacco lobby congress hard to also stem the likelihood of marijuana ever being legalized.

Don't get me started on the self-preservation propaganda tactics of the DEA so they can justify their own existence.

So vcwxvwligen you're fighting for the 'tortured' female cannabis plants?

Who are you? The Lorax? I speak for the Trees?

Opponents of legalization just spout the same tired closed-minded arguments that don't mean anything. And it's obvious proof to anybody that's "done pot" that you don't have any idea what in the hell you're talking about.

You can't silence an idea whose time has come.

Reading through all these replies its clear that something should be done. Are there any political parties one could donate to that supports a pro-marijuana stance. That would be such a powerful platform. I found this article on NPR

theweek.com... -must-support-legalizing-drugs

I googled "tea party on marijuana" just now on google news and nothing very relevant came up. I don't see why this isn't a big issue. If its not yet, its going to be.

Is there a tea party antithesis? I just found this site and it's pretty damn fine I might need some help getting up to date.

~ edit ~

searched for "marijuana" on the Tea Party wiki site, nada, nothing for "drugs" either.

but I found this:
reason.com... m=twitter&utm_campaign=Feed:+reason/HitandRun+(Reason+Online+-+Hit+%26+Run+Blog)&utm_content=Twitter

I've never thought about joining the Tea Party before, but if they supported marijuana legalization...

When I think about that I see the tea party in a totally different light.
Maybe...
still reading...

Originally posted by sad_eyed_lady


Why can't other politicians see things from Ron's perspective? This man is the genuine article. Maybe we should share this article with our legislators and give them something worthwhile to work on instead of destroying our economy.

I don't smoke pot, but to me it is criminal that the government is making criminals out of marijuana users. People are doing hard time for pot while white collar criminals (who ruin others lives and make a sham of capitalism) get rewarded with bailout money and bonuses. Too much time and energy is being wasted by law enforcement and the judicial system prosecuting people for getting a buzz. Perhaps more law enforcement efforts should be directed at business malpractices. If we are going to have Big Brother, put him in the board room.

Check article for video.

rawstory.com
(visit the link for the full news article)

The simple answer to this is if they can make pot illegal than cigarretes and alcohol have no right whatsoever to be legal. They're worse by all classifications employed in the industry. Money is lost every year because of addiction. It's a scam and a shame that we let this happen.

Drug use is a disease, that's how I see it. At the same time, drug use is something that has been with humanity since we can remember. It's an aspect of human psychology to desire drugs and to experiment with alterations in perception. So I don't feel we'll ever eliminate drugs, we can't. But we shouldn't treat it as a harmless issue. Granted, it WOULD be virtually harmless if all of the users were responsible AND not susceptible to addiction (as some are), but many drug users use them improperly and even though it's less than 20 percent that suffer significant addiction it's still harmful.

I'm not saying drugs are all bad. As I've stated, drug use appears to be a part of humanity. We desire them for various reasons. Some of our greatest artists have used drugs and would they have been great without them? Will we ever know? We use drugs in healthcare for pain relief and psychiatric management and probably many other purposes. There're a lot of things about humanity that can be ugly and despairing but will never go away. Maybe drug addictions are one example of this or not?

I think it's wrong to deal with it the way we're dealing with it, but you can't really blame them either because this issue is complex. This is the same way I feel about the wars in iraq and afghanistan. Even though I disagree I think the issue is too complicated to justify active opposition to the other party. What I mean is I can't treat those I disagree with as evil or corrupt. I feel helpless. I've been wrong before and I know how easy it's to be wrong about things. So I give people mercy.

What would I do, or what do I think is a bad idea? Well if we're truly against drugs than we should make cigarettes and alcohol illegal as well. Furthermore, treatment centers are better than a drug war. Addiction is something that will reoccur during a lifetime. It never goes away for the afflicted. We have to stop looking at it as an example of poor judgement. It's looking to be more like a disease. Responsibility plays a role, no doubt about it, but we exaggerate the role and skip over the fact that addiction, for the worst sufferers, is a disease and we have lots of evidence and research to back this statement up. So if we want to help people throwing them in jail might not be the best answer.

In fact, throwing them in jail and exclusively blaming them might be more expensive. I mean you're paying room and board, food, healthcare, court and attorney fees, and god knows what? And does the man who gets shot by a gun get better by putting him in jail? Obviously not, but how do we know how to treat a problem if we misidentify it? It's like mixing charts and performing the wrong surgery.

I really believe that out right making something illegal only creates a black market for it. So instead of getting something from a lagetamet lab people that use drugs are get it from John doe at a rave that was made in some ones garage. Now there are somethings that should not be readily available to the public but just throwing these people in jail instead of helping them with recovery they are just perpetuating the problem because as soon as that person gets out of jail there going right back to that pipe. Also the classification of drugs is all wrong things such as weed and '___' are schedule one(extremely hazard-est to your health with no medical uses and a high tendency for abuse) and things like adderal(which is pharmacy manufactured amphetamine) and hundreds of thousands of kids take every day are schedule 3. Also its completely outrageous that Alcohol is legal if any substances should be banned.

Also the US farms the poppy fields in Afghanistan and what do you think all that opium go? Into making heroin wich is X10 more profitable than vicodin or morphine.

Just a quick crazy theory...

Ron Paul stands for the constitution like no president we've seen in a while(ALL AN ACT, of course..)

People start to go towards him and away from Obama...which has been happening...

Then a war will break out in the future making it to where we need a president who is strong and can protect the people. This is where Ron Paul's easy living from the constitution goes out the window because no people are terrified and want that protection that 9/11 struck a power chord on.

So is where Obama then get's elected because people were so sure they were going to go for Ron Paul that there next choice would be Obama.

Ok, I'm done.

BUT at least this...do you guys honestly think Ron Paul is serious? Remember the patriot act? They don't want the consitution around so they can play their games...they will not Ron Paul around if he is TRULY serious about what he says(which he's not).

You guys remember hearing the promises that Obama made from his campaigns? They were crazy, to the point where you would be crazy not to vote for him....


Ron Paul is doing this falsified promise in a new way...using the constitution.