Ron Paul on legalizing heroin

I really hope U.S. does this kind of program. I am a heroin addict currently in college trying to get a degree in physics. People don't realize that we addicts won't stop using even if the death penalty was use for possession. For me I simply have trouble living life sober because I am naturely depressed. I've been to therapists and psychiatrist since I was seven. The stuff the psychiatrist has given me over the years has actually made me worse and led to my addiction to heroin. Heroin is the only thing that allows me to tolerate this life. Some people are alcoholics and our society tolerates that. Why does my drug of choice have to be discriminated against? Alcohol actually does more harm to the body than heroin, even street heroin. Alcohol does irreversible damage to your brain cells and liver. The withdrawal from alcohol is actually worse then heroin withdrawal because it can kill you. The worst heroin will do is take 5 years off your life and cause collapsed veins. If heroin were prescribed to me it would be much cheaper, I wouldn't have to worry about overdose, wouldn't have to worry about my life being ruined by an arrest, and my veins would last longer or not even collapse because i would have access to the proper equipment.

Okay. Let's say that Ron Paul is wrong and everyone else is right. Don't you see that is where that has gotten us? 1st and 4th amendments are dead. Hundreds of thousands are in prison for non-violent crimes (NORMAL PEOPLE). Millions of taxdollars are dedicated to these 'wars' on 'drugs', which are really wars on personal freedom. And guess what? NO PROGESS HAS BEEN MADE! Only turmoil continues in the wake of everyone's callous ignorance. Please, have some humanity and LOOK OUT FOR YOUR FELLOW MAN! Next time, they may just make you a criminal. And yes, they make criminals out of normal citizens by victimizing them to the 'system'. If they weren't violent before, they sure will be when they get out. Wouldn't you, if you were arrested and your family / home attacked for something so simple as having a beer / glass of wine? Think about it, if you can.

if i knew who your kids were id offer them all the free weed they could smoke. without question. its parents like you who are bringing this country down. and its individuals like ron paul that are doing everything humanly possible to stop you. go put another nobama sticker on your hybrid SUV, paulette.

To say corporations should do what they want? Legalize heroine. No I want anyone who offers my children drugs, pot, and yes heroine to be subject to prison. Ron Paul is just another extremist moron who makes his rants in order to remove critical thinking!

You people make me sick. A populist politician? Fuck yourself, dude. Ron Paul is about values and principles, not about gaining political support. I have never in my life gotten the impression that a politician had my, my family's or my states' interests in mind. I do not get that impression from Ron Paul, for he is not a politician yet, but merely still a human being. That deserves immeasurable amounts of respect.

@teleomorph, first of all, Why do the big polluters support candidates besides Ron Paul? Because he won't fucking win. Please don't try to slam that card down like you have a winner.

Furthermore, if you do some research about pollution and the history of the EPA, the EPA was established to combat the polluters. Shit was getting bad, and something had to be done. It is most certainly NOT the case that Joe Blow and Mama Catfarm were suing the big polluters about their world getting toxic, and thereby making the world better, before the EPA showed up. Anyhow, with corporations even existing, you can't ever expect individuals in those corporations to respect future repurcussions, if there is a great chance for short-term gain. They'll make their pile of cash, and then the company will go bankrupt once the deadly poison has ruined the town. No--it's a better idea to monitor that shit before it goes wrong. Will corporations complain and bitch, and try to loosen the chains (maybe even sometimes with good reason)? Yes. Is it anti-human collusion? Well, even if it ISN'T, people could easily say that it WAS, if they really want drug legalization, for example.

Future legislation, judicial appointments, and enforcement practices wouldn't suddenly turn "people-friendly" once the system becomes individual citizens grouping together vs. corporations, like Ron Paul maybe imagines. A watchdog organization, accountable to the elected government as a whole, is a lot better than some after-the-fact lawsuits that the press might bury or not, and that the corporations might outspend or not--not to mention all of the polluting that might go unseen without regulation and oversight extended everywhere by gov't mandate. Who gets a kit and tests the soil and water everywhere in their county? Heaven Bless Ron Paul, and everyone who wants shit to be simple--they are a great dose of cold water now and then. But we're people, and we have to do better.

'It is that "regulation" that Ron Paul wants to eliminate...' you're narrowing paul's scope. in the video above, paul does not frame regulation in the way you are insisting his views have to be understood.

It is precisely the collusions between corporations and government that ALLOWS them to pollute and cheat without repercussion. It is that "regulation" that Ron Paul wants to eliminate - which would allow for people to hold polluters and poisoners and thieves legally responsible for their crimes, instead of protected by "regulations" that they and their revolving door board-member / politicians design and make law.
These are basic issues that anyone who as actually researched Paul's stances concerning corporatism and property rights and personal liberty rights has come to understand. (And by research I don't mean watching a segment by Rachel Maddow or a Fox News or Huffington Post article.)
If you really think corporations (big oil, big agro, banking, etc) have something to gain by Paul's positions, why do they all instead support the big government politicians like Obama and the mainline Republicans while Paul, instead, receives his support from middle class, young and anti-corporatist populace??

@Matthew, under Ron Paul there would be no FDA and no regulation for corporations to tell people what is in their products. Even the most liberal countries do not make heroin "legal" for people to do whatever they want with it, including putting it in baby formula with no warning label. But that is Ron Paul's definition of liberty, we don't need big government telling people we can't put heroin in baby formula, that is for the individual to decide.

Heroin burgers? That's ridiculous, people would NOT be eating that and the reputation of ANY corporation DOING that would be so shot they'd go out of business in a HURRY. They would be boycotted and shunned so fast...

Some countries are VERY liberal in their drug laws. You don't see them putting heroin in their burgers either. That was a very ridiculous assumption imo!

@jamesk

//Without regulations, we would have unsafe products just like in China. Plastic in the milk, poisons in our paint,//

I'm not arguing the points made in this post either way but I do want you to know (and others here) that they are doing all of this right now (and this //I am not willing to let corporations dump toxic waste//), so that we can buy cheap consumer goods here in the US. They are putting it outside of our direct line of sight so that we don't see the consequences of our actions. They are creating disconnection between purchasing and effects. See the following documentary called "Ghana: Digital Dumping Ground"

[link]

I would also recommend the documentary called "Manufactured Landscapes"

Well said, JamesK. The world is not some perfect place where idealistic shit simply triumphs over all the shams and scams.

Not that our current class scheduling is perfect by a long shot, I do not agree with that. I believe recreational drugs should be regulated like tobacco and alcohol. Packaged in less than 20 servings; can't overdose on a single package; strict restrictions on sales and advertising; available to customers who do not appear "wasted" to the person behind the counter. But I do not think you should be able to walk into a grocery store and and buy a 5lb bag of heroin, like sugar, and give it away at the playground because it is "legal". That is insane. That is Ron Paul.

teleomorph, my argument against Ron Paul is that he is against any kind of regulation. I am not willing to let corporations dump toxic waste wherever they want just because I want legal drugs. Some things should be regulated, I think opiates are one of those things. Anyone who thinks the public is clever enough not to get strung out on addictive drugs in the food supply is crazy. It has already happened with sugar and caffeine.

I completely agree with Ron Paul about personal liberties and drug legalization.

What I don't agree with him about is the idea that corporations should be free of regulation and be allowed to do as they please. Without regulations, we would have unsafe products just like in China. Plastic in the milk, poisons in our paint, etc.

James, that's your argument against legalization and Ron Paul? Heroin burgers? You crack me up.
There are already many opiates that just as if not more addictive than heroin. Yet those aren't added to junk food. Besides if they put it in they would have to reveal it on the ingredients and then people would choose for themselves if they actually want a heroin burger or real coca cola.
You of all people can't possibly think the currently illegal drugs are scheduled because of some magical addictive properties. The is no pharmacological reasoning behind the current drug schedule 1 class.

And just two more comments on my own comment.

1. Yes, Ron Paul's version of "liberty" means allowing corporations like Coke or McDonalds to put heroin in their products. Caveat emptor.

2. Mmm.... Heroin burger... (drool drool)

I like Ron Paul, but he is also ridiculously simplistic in much of his logic. If heroin were legal, corporations would be putting it in soft drinks and fast-food burgers to get people addicted to their products. People wouldn't take it by choice, but try finding something to drink without addictive sweeteners or stimulants, and then extrapolate to products containing heroin and cocaine. It is not only the recreational user you need to worry about, you need to worry about addictive junk in the food chain.

It's too bad the GOP will choose a more puppet-like candidate, but at least Ron Paul will get to say this stuff in the national media for a few months.

I've loved this man for a very long time and it breaks my heart to see the establishment try to demonize him and twist his words against him when all he's trying to do is fight FOR the people unlike just about every other politician. I'm sure most of the crowd in the psychedelic community are intelligent and empowered enough to understand the principals this man speaks about but I don't think I can say the same for the average citizen :(

I think he's about the only man in Washington who's voting record is impeccable and never says anything to gain popularity but speaks from the heart

What makes you think so?

He promised during the last campaign to release every non-violent drug offender currently incarcerated in the US (that's many millions of torn families reunited and broken lives restored) and he was/is serious about ending the wars (unlike Obama).
Why the counter-culture and anti-war crowd doesn't enthusiastically support this guy is something I will never figure out.

Another populist politician. Sadly so.