Discover and share the best of the web!
Learn more about Digg by taking the tour.
Congressman Ron Paul's (R-TX) Complaint to the General Accounting Office
libertarianempire.com — Ron Paul wants to end the "war on drugs" because he wants to reduce the size of government and values freedom in general.
nicholai- 213 diggs
- digg it
- manicmarvin, on 11/11/2007, -2/+17The follow-up: "GAO Finds ONDCP Marijuana Campaign Legal"
http://www.jointogether.org/news/headlines/inthene ...
"It is unfortunate, although not surprising, that the GAO counsel believes the ONDCP acts within its bounds when it engages in political action at taxpayer expense," said Paul. "Imagine the outcry if IRS staff traveled the country arguing against tax cuts at the state level." -- Ron Paul- nicholai, on 11/11/2007, -1/+17"Even though the statements may have been controversial, they were made within the context of ONDCP's statutory responsibilities, which include taking such actions as necessary to oppose efforts to legalize certain substances."
In other words, lying is OK if it's done in the name of the "war on drugs". Even when they waste our tax money on spreading these lies. Who the ***** gave the government the authority to waste my money on "taking such actions as necessary to oppose efforts to legalize certain substances".
BTW: Thanks for the info, I will post it on my site.- Xuvious, on 11/11/2007, -1/+11You'll like this I think:
The Drug Czar is required by law to lie
http://blogs.salon.com/0002762/stories/2007/10/09/ ...- nicholai, on 11/11/2007, -2/+9The drug czar shouldn't even exist because the entire "war on drugs" is extremely unconstitutional. The people that support the "war on drugs" should be charged with treason, theft, murder, kidnapping, torture, conspiracy and terrorism.
- NoStoppingUs, on 10/25/2007, -2/+1lol
- NoStoppingUs, on 10/25/2007, -2/+1lol
- Xuvious, on 11/11/2007, -2/+8You left out perjury...and a few others :)
- nicholai, on 11/11/2007, -0/+6True, but I think we have enough to get these neocons executed.
- Xuvious, on 11/11/2007, -0/+6HA!
But we should do to them as they do to us. Throw everything in the legal department at them and see what sticks. 50 charges? 100 charges? The more the better. Maybe even execute them twice.
- nicholai, on 11/11/2007, -2/+9The drug czar shouldn't even exist because the entire "war on drugs" is extremely unconstitutional. The people that support the "war on drugs" should be charged with treason, theft, murder, kidnapping, torture, conspiracy and terrorism.
- SeethisPass, on 10/29/2007, -1/+1"The people that support the "war on drugs"
Who is that ?
I haven't hears a word from anyone outside the Washington beltway in years and years who supports the drug war. If someone supports the drug war and reads this please reply.
- Xuvious, on 11/11/2007, -1/+11You'll like this I think:
- nicholai, on 11/11/2007, -1/+17"Even though the statements may have been controversial, they were made within the context of ONDCP's statutory responsibilities, which include taking such actions as necessary to oppose efforts to legalize certain substances."
- nicholai, on 11/11/2007, -4/+12This should only cause us to increase our support for Ron Paul and our opposition to the "war on drugs" and everyone that supports it.
- fadeout, on 11/11/2007, -18/+6Do you geniuses have any idea what would happen to the rural south overnight if crystal meth was decriminalized?
Even the biggest NORML stoner seems to have more common sense than you Paulbots and realizes that the not every drug should be legal.- mkrfctr, on 11/11/2007, -5/+19Um not much since anyone who wants some can get it. Although it might lower prices making them steal less and pawn less of their stuff. And it might stop the turf wars and the illegal smuggling networks that bypass our nations border security, and oh it might also stop meth labs which use many dangerous chemicals from being operated haphazardly with little regard for public safety and pollution concerns. And you could take half the money used on enforcement and give it back to the taxpayers and still take the other half and spend it on actually HELPING the people affected. And perhaps stop illegal civil forfeitures which are an egregious abuse of police powers.
But I guess no, that's just all silly. Lets just go on the path we've been on the last 30 years since that's been working out sooo great. *rolls eyes*- vault, on 10/29/2007, -7/+3Potheads won't mug you and prostitute themselves on street corners to get their fix, meth and heroin addicts will. You can't tell me that legalizing meth/heroin would not result in more use and that it wouldn't aggravate all those problems. And in the case of meth, the drug itself makes people violate, not just the fact it's illegal.
Legalize pot, keep other drugs as they are, but expanding treatment options and stop locking up nonviolent offenders.- nicholai, on 11/11/2007, -2/+8You must have no understanding of the constitution or the libertarian NAP. Prostitution would be legalized because it is a victimless crime, just like drug use. Muggers would face very stiff penalties for violating the civil rights of others as well as the libertarian NAP.
http://libertarianempire.com/Drugs.html- vault, on 10/29/2007, -9/+3Oh give me a ***** break, you johnny-come-lately Libertarian. Who CARES, do you want MORE crime? Nothing good can come out of legalizing methamphetamine, no matter what constitutional rationale you provide.
- Corrosionx, on 10/29/2007, -2/+6The biggest problem with the hard addicting drugs is that addicts have to rob convenience stores and people on the street because they are so damn expensive because they are illegal in the first place. Nobody would rob a convenience store for crack if crack costs 50 cents. Any substance abuse is a medical problem, unless you use the law to bring it into illegallity.
We would never have this much problems with drugs if it was legal in the first place. Because there wouldn't be obsene profits to organize criminals. - vault, on 10/24/2007, -1/+3@corrosion
That isn't the case for meth which is relatively cheap and which makes you violent because of the fact it's an incredibly strong stimulant. It's not just violence for drug money. It's violence because it makes you so hyper/agitated and makes you think you're powerful and all that. - fadeout, on 10/24/2007, -5/+1"Nobody would rob a convenience store for crack if crack costs 50 cents."
You have clearly never known anyone addicted to a "hard" drug. A heroin or meth addict will assault and rob his mother for a dime if he needs it badly enough.
"We would never have this much problems with drugs if it was legal in the first place."
Do some reading on what happened to China when they were forced to allow the sale of opium. - Shorties, on 10/24/2007, -1/+3Legalizing prostitution then regulating prostitution (Maybe not government regulation but some kind of union) = safer prostitution.
- nicholai, on 11/11/2007, -2/+8You must have no understanding of the constitution or the libertarian NAP. Prostitution would be legalized because it is a victimless crime, just like drug use. Muggers would face very stiff penalties for violating the civil rights of others as well as the libertarian NAP.
- vault, on 10/24/2007, -2/+3haha, that should've read 'violent' not violate :-/
lol :-)
- vault, on 10/29/2007, -7/+3Potheads won't mug you and prostitute themselves on street corners to get their fix, meth and heroin addicts will. You can't tell me that legalizing meth/heroin would not result in more use and that it wouldn't aggravate all those problems. And in the case of meth, the drug itself makes people violate, not just the fact it's illegal.
- nicholai, on 10/24/2007, -6/+5Your entire post was ***** but the word "Paulbot" was reason enough to bury you.
- maz2331, on 10/29/2007, -0/+6I say let them do all the drugs they want without legal repercussions. If they do violent crime, punish THAT. By all means assist in detox. Heck, let them weed themselves from the population for all I care.
I just don't like "saving" people with decades in prison. It just doesn't work well.- PATSCRU, on 10/29/2007, -5/+2assist in detox? a libertarian proposing a social program? oh what a pickle!
- nicholai, on 10/29/2007, -0/+1I know neocons like you would never think of voluntary programs as an option but that is what we are talking about here.
- PATSCRU, on 10/29/2007, -5/+2assist in detox? a libertarian proposing a social program? oh what a pickle!
- SiNN4R, on 10/29/2007, -1/+2Yeah people would stop blowing up their homes trying to cook it themselves.
- mkrfctr, on 11/11/2007, -5/+19Um not much since anyone who wants some can get it. Although it might lower prices making them steal less and pawn less of their stuff. And it might stop the turf wars and the illegal smuggling networks that bypass our nations border security, and oh it might also stop meth labs which use many dangerous chemicals from being operated haphazardly with little regard for public safety and pollution concerns. And you could take half the money used on enforcement and give it back to the taxpayers and still take the other half and spend it on actually HELPING the people affected. And perhaps stop illegal civil forfeitures which are an egregious abuse of police powers.
- bushesbitch, on 11/11/2007, -18/+2PEOPLE ARE TOO STUPID TO VOTE FOR RON PAUL AND IF THEY WERE NOT THE ELECTION WOULD BE STOLEN AND THEN AMERICANS WOULD TAKE IT UP THE ASS LIKE USUAL .................................................LIKE THIS IDIOT COMMENTING ABOVE ME ,MR. FADEOUT WHAT A PIECE OF BRAINWASHED ***** , I CAN'T WAIT UNTIL THIS COUNTRY IS DESTROYED !!!!!
- vengefuldrx, on 10/29/2007, -1/+0Just for the record:
ALL CAPS == little intellect
- vengefuldrx, on 10/29/2007, -1/+0Just for the record:
- Hortnon, on 11/11/2007, -12/+3Ok...and?
- Xuvious, on 11/11/2007, -3/+4And what?
- nicholai, on 10/24/2007, -2/+4The "war on drugs" is unconstitutional, this means we need to legalize all drugs.
- Xuvious, on 11/11/2007, -1/+5I was referring to Hortnon. But you're right about legalizing drugs. I just was wondering what Hortnon was talking about.
- Hortnon, on 11/11/2007, -5/+2And why is a 4 year old letter news-worthy? He's made plenty of recent speeches about this, I'm sure.
- nicholai, on 10/29/2007, -0/+1Why do you spam and bury every libertarian issue? Does the CIA pay you to piss people off?
- nicholai, on 10/24/2007, -2/+4The "war on drugs" is unconstitutional, this means we need to legalize all drugs.
- chronically420, on 10/25/2007, -0/+3and it should have been taken more seriously by the people that claim to go by the constitution.
- Xuvious, on 11/11/2007, -3/+4And what?
- SiNN4R, on 10/29/2007, -2/+5He wants to bring us love, KILL HIM!
- WiseWeasel, on 10/25/2007, -0/+3A WITCH!
- zachshmack, on 10/25/2007, -2/+3I support Ron Paul and everything, but this letter is from April of 2003. How is this news?
- nicholai, on 10/25/2007, -0/+1It's news to everyone that didn't know about it, just like Ron Paul is still news to everyone that hasn't heard about him so far. We need to bypass the main stream media by pushing the facts online.
- Spanq, on 10/28/2007, -4/+1I want to take a ***** on the guy who designed this site.
- nicholai, on 10/29/2007, -0/+1I want to bury you alive in your own *****.
- Ghoztt, on 10/29/2007, -1/+6This guy has my vote!
- x083, on 10/28/2007, -0/+4interesting read, site does need a new design... i also think its important that we all get more and more people involved, because those people will get others involved the ron paul campaign is snowballing.. keep passing out freedom to fascism and money masters dvds!!
- nicholai, on 10/25/2007, -0/+1You are right, we do need to start getting more people involved. We should also make it very clear that we will charge the people that support the "war on drugs" with war crimes if we ever get the chance. These neocons are not going to back down until they realize they could be punished for subverting the constitution.
BTW: This is just my Halloween theme, I will change back to white text after Halloween.
- nicholai, on 10/25/2007, -0/+1You are right, we do need to start getting more people involved. We should also make it very clear that we will charge the people that support the "war on drugs" with war crimes if we ever get the chance. These neocons are not going to back down until they realize they could be punished for subverting the constitution.
- Xuvious, on 11/11/2007, -0/+6After reading all of the comments here it seems that no one got the gist of what Paul was saying.
Behind his entire letter was the fact that the Federal Government has no Right to get in the middle of State issues, which drug laws most certainly are. For the Feds to start propaganda to influence a State initiative is plainly the wrong thing to do.
Drug use is not covered in the first eight Amendments to the Constitution but they do fall under the 9th and 10th Amendments. Making them a States Rights issue. Something the Federal Government must keep the hell out of and it's central to what Paul has been saying for years.
Browsing Digg on your phone just got easier with our enhancements to the 
© Digg Inc. 2008 —
Content posted by