Tonight! Nov. 22/11: CNN Republican National Security Debate - 8pm EST

Originally posted by mishigas
reply to post by Ghost375

 

Ron Paul is 100% right about our drug policies.
Legalize them. As he said, "Prescription drugs kill more people than illegal drugs."

Prescribed drugs (legal drugs) kill more people than illegal drugs do.

Therefore, we should legalize all drugs. Then all drugs will kill more people.

So THAT'S the piece of Ron Paul's philosophy I've been missing! Now it all makes perfect sense!

:

You did well when you defended Romney on that genocide remark. Then, afraid of peer pressure, you succumbed to RP apology tactics. Man up! Think for yourself!

edit on 23-11-2011 by mishigas because: (no reason given)

Of course more people will die because if drugs were legal then everyone will become addicts and od on them. Will you also support the government passing laws as to what kind of foods you can eat?

reply to post by mishigas
You COULD stand some enlightening on both Paul's view AND a rational approach to this issue...

First off, getting the federal government out of the drug issue does NOT legalize drugs. False argument. States would be able to make their own drug laws, and as far as I'm aware *most already have their own in place anyway*.

Secondly, prohibition and criminalization come with a slew of problems. You drive something underground, you drive it away from any regulation, any controls on who can buy from suppliers, any quality controls, make it profitable and put it squarely in the hands of criminals who will likely become violent as a result of large profit margins.

Thirdly - why are we handling a public health issue as a criminal matter? Criminalizing personal behavior that does not lead to any other crime or offense against anyone else is utterly nonsensical, and it doesn't work. Since you seem to support the prohibition view, please let me know how much progress we've made in the war on drugs in the last few decades - last I checked, drugs were cheaper, more plentiful, stronger, and easier for kids to get than alcohol and cigarettes. GO PROHIBITION!

Much more sensible to treat public health issues AS public health issues and actually do some good - the Netherlands and Portugal are both great examples here. Lower per capita use across all age ranges. Less AIDS deaths from needle sharing. Less overdoses, less addiction, less EVERYTHING bad related to the drug problem. How terrible - "addicts" living normal lives as functioning members of society instead of social lepers, even!

Do we want people to do drugs? No - but our policy is an utter failure and backfires in every regard, clogs our prisons with the non-violent, actually serves a gateway function by putting soft users into more contact with hard substances. Continuing to throw money down this hole will accomplish nothing - it's time for common sense and to follow SUCCESSFUL examples that ruin less lives and doesn't spike our fiscal heel for no good reason.

Originally posted by JacKatMtn
Dog gone it Ron!!

He still rambles after he made the best point, using Paul Wolfiwitz' own words...


Quit while you are ahead Ron!!

Too bad. Newt won another debate.
He made Ron Paul look foolish.

Good News: Obama is being pushed out onto the golf course by Chris Matthews.
Hillary Clinton is taking over in January 2012.

reply to post by Praetorius

reply to post by mishigas
You COULD stand some enlightening on both Paul's view AND a rational approach to this issue...

First off, getting the federal government out of the drug issue does NOT legalize drugs. False argument. States would be able to make their own drug laws, and as far as I'm aware *most already have their own in place anyway*.

Before we address the standard Ron Paul response (make it a states rights issue) my problem is not so much the prohibition angle, but the fact that he seems to shrug it off and think it is just fine for anyone to do any drugs at all. He's welcome to hold that personal attitude. When he is a leader of the most powerful nation on earth, that attitude must mature.

I get the feeling that if all 50 states allowed any drugs to be ingested, Ron Paul would think that was just fine.

Secondly, prohibition and criminalization come with a slew of problems. You drive something underground, you drive it away from any regulation, any controls on who can buy from suppliers, any quality controls, make it profitable and put it squarely in the hands of criminals who will likely become violent as a result of large profit margins.

You state the obvious because.....???

Your argument gives two choices: legalization or prohibition. History has taught us that neither choice works. And you want me to come up with a solution right here right now? No can do.

Thirdly - why are we handling a public health issue as a criminal matter? Criminalizing personal behavior that does not lead to any other crime or offense against anyone else is utterly nonsensical, and it doesn't work. Since you seem to support the prohibition view, please let me know how much progress we've made in the war on drugs in the last few decades - last I checked, drugs were cheaper, more plentiful, stronger, and easier for kids to get than alcohol and cigarettes. GO PROHIBITION!

Much more sensible to treat public health issues AS public health issues and actually do some good - the Netherlands and Portugal are both great examples here. Lower per capita use across all age ranges. Less AIDS deaths from needle sharing. Less overdoses, less addiction, less EVERYTHING bad related to the drug problem. How terrible - "addicts" living normal lives as functioning members of society instead of social lepers, even!

Do we want people to do drugs? No - but our policy is an utter failure and backfires in every regard, clogs our prisons with the non-violent, actually serves a gateway function by putting soft users into more contact with hard substances. Continuing to throw money down this hole will accomplish nothing - it's time for common sense and to follow SUCCESSFUL examples that ruin less lives and doesn't spike our fiscal heel for no good reason.

The old pig-lipstick attempt. Call it something clean and antiseptic, like 'Public Health Issue'. That will result in LESS crime LESS addiction LESS everything bad. See? Problem solved! The US has about 20x the population of the Netherlands, and about 30x Portugal. Believe me, factoids like that matter.

reply to post by mishigas
OK, I'm back - sorry. Had to get away from ATS for awhile.

Before we address the standard Ron Paul response (make it a states rights issue) my problem is not so much the prohibition angle, but the fact that he seems to shrug it off and think it is just fine for anyone to do any drugs at all. He's welcome to hold that personal attitude. When he is a leader of the most powerful nation on earth, that attitude must mature.

I get the feeling that if all 50 states allowed any drugs to be ingested, Ron Paul would think that was just fine.

Well, that's understandable, I suppose, although just with what he's said I don't think it's correct. Granted, he does leave it as a personal responsibility & freedom of choice issue, but he personally advocates against these things, as far as I can tell hasn't ever done them himself, and speaks out toward the common sense that most people likely would not run out and start doing them just because criminal penalties were removed.

And again, as he directs this back to a state's rights issue with no authority from the federal government, it's honestly a bit of a non-issue in the first place.

You state the obvious because.....???

Your argument gives two choices: legalization or prohibition. History has taught us that neither choice works. And you want me to come up with a solution right here right now? No can do.

Sometimes it just bears repeating, but I'll apologize. As far as a solution and what works - decriminalization (I won't argue for legalization outright personally, at least not at this time...sorry for lack of clarity there as I tend to lump the two together at times) or a Netherlands-style delineation between certain types with a focus on education and harm reduction have shown to be successful to an impressive degree.

At the very least, let's drop a completely ineffective and counterproductive policy for one that actually works to a substantial degree and doesn't blow your own foot off at the same time, even if it might not be perfect.

The old pig-lipstick attempt. Call it something clean and antiseptic, like 'Public Health Issue'. That will result in LESS crime LESS addiction LESS everything bad. See? Problem solved! The US has about 20x the population of the Netherlands, and about 30x Portugal. Believe me, factoids like that matter.

Factoids like that do matter, agreed - but we're talking about per-capita usage rates, not totals based on overall population. And I couldn't really care less about semantics or branding - things are what they are. Addiction and consumption of substances ARE public health issues and should be handled as such just like with alcohol & tobacco - only becoming crimes when they extend beyond personal choice to affecting other people's rights & liberties (in cases of violent crime, theft, various damages against others, and the like). Prohibition as such is simply a failed policy by all accounts...it's wasteful, an utter flop, and we have more successful (and less costly) examples to try out.

And I'd like to thank you outright for the measured response. I was honestly expecting that to be much worse. Thanks, Mishigas. Hope you're well & an early merry Christmas to you.