BobS posted Take the drug dealer out of the equation and you would be surprised with the result. Listen to Dr. Pauls thoughts on drugs. Yup take the drug dealer out and replace him with the taxman........with a little government stimulus they could turn the whole thing into another revenue stream......And with no drug testing on welfare recipients why golly they could just turn the whole process into a socialist perpetual money machine round and round the money would go!!
This whole drug discussion reminds me of the ethanol fiasco brought to us by the benevolent government who never saw a problen that they couldn't make worse. Government identifies a problem (oil dependence/drug dependence), spend billions on a "solution" (ethanol in fuel/war on drugs), everyone agrees that it does practically nothing to solve the problem (no net reduction in oil use/no real reduction in drug use), and declares that we need to do more of the same because the problem is still there (still dependent on foreign oil/drug abuse still rampant). Ad infinitum.
For me the question has always been: Why are so many people's lives so meaningless/unfulfilled that they need to constantly live in an altered state? Drug and alcohol abuse are just symptoms of the disease. But if the government can make some money on it it will all be okay.
We chose to stop drinking after one; some people cannot choose.
One definition of "an addict" is that they CANNOT choose.
An alcoholic will drink although they lose their job, marriage, driver's licence, even their health. Have you ever seen someone with throat cancer smoking through a tracheotomy ? These strongly suggest that there may not be "choice" involved for these people.
That doesn't excuse the behavior, remove the responsibity, nor nullify the benefit of consequences. Treating it as a simple "choice", however, is not accurate, and ignores the solutions that work.
Why are so many people's lives so meaningless/unfulfilled that they need to constantly live in an altered state?
One reason is that avoidance of pain, and seeking pleasure, is natural. However, it can also become almost pathological. Sensualists, epicurists and materialists tend to discount those things that do not cause, nor lead to pleasure. Physical tolerence, though, causes the pleasure to decrease, and eventually force some to use these things no longer to give pleasure, but, instead, to stop pain.
I am going to assume you supprt the War on Drugs, (actually, it should be called the War on Some Drugs) If so, then I have one question I always ask of people who support this war.
Why do you and the drug cartels share the same interest in supporting the War on Some Drugs?
If you are not in favor of the war, then please ignore.
Obamadone seems to be the drug of choice these days. It's the latest in a long line of Govercontin derivatives.
And the best part is, 'it's free.'
I'm pretty sure that it was BPA that killed Whitney!
“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".
CBS obviously misquoted Rep. Paul, Apollo. That's why none of his ardent followers are rising to defend him. Yeah. That's it.
While I probably don't qualify as an "ardent supporter", saying someone should have the freedom to do something is not the same as advocating that they do something. For instance, I believe you have the right to eat a deep-fried Twinkie without government interference, but that doesn't mean I believe eating deep-fried Twinkies is a good habit or one that I should encourage. Anytime someone tries to have a rational discussion about the War on Drugs it degenerates into this:
Person #1 "The War on Drugs is an expensive failure. Maybe we need to look at it. Maybe we shouldn't do it at all."
Person #2 "Yeah, but drugs are bad!"
Person #1 "I didn't say drugs were good. I said the War on Drugs is an expensive failure."
Person #2 "Yeah, but drugs are bad!"
For the record, I believe drug use is a poor choice. I suspect that, as a physician, Dr. Paul is aware of the danger of drug use. As a constitutionalist, he appears to be aware of the danger of government also.
Government is infinitely more dangerous than drugs.
I doubt anyone at any caucus was more high than the one who titled this thread.
1) Ron Paul has stated that the war on drugs is a failure and we should focus on helping those in trouble rather than make the criminals.
2) Whitney Houston's drugs were legally given to her by a doctor.
3) Blaming Ron Paul for someone doing drugs is akin to blaming the Second Amendment for everyone who is shot. In fact it worse, because the 2nd Amendment is the law of the land. Ron Paul's beliefs are not even in effect.
Its nice to see I can find posts on AMG that make teenager's tweets look professorial.
When I saw the title I actually thought it was written as a sophomoric attempt to bring the many people who thought Houston was an overrated and overhyped immature child into voting for Ron Paul. Instead it didn't even rise to the level of sophomoric.
So based on this logic if someone heard this and rammed a spike through their own skull it would be Ron Paul's fault and not that of the individual.
When did you become such an advocate for the nanny state?