Ron Paul - Illegal Drugs

Summary

Congressman Paul has stated that the federal government does not possess the authority to establish laws regulating drug possession, and that the federal government was not intended to fight a war on drugs. He has stated that he does not support drug use, but that the role of the federal government is not to regulate behavior. He supports state laws to regulate drugs as each state sees fit.

During the 2008 Presidential election Congressman Paul stated that if elected, he would pardon those in jail for non-violent drug crimes and end the war on drugs. He notes that allowing the safe purchase of drugs would end the drug cartels in other countries and lead to better prevention of drug use by minors as tobacco and alcohol are limited today. 

Not Congress's Duty to Regulate Behavior

In April of 1998, Congressman Paul spoke on the House floor about the possibility of random drug tests. He stated that random checks for drugs on a person could lead to random checks on that person's papers or telephones. He notes that it is not Congress's purpose to regulate behavior.

Never Intended that US Fight War on Drugs

In May of 1998, Congressman Paul spoke on the House floor and noted that the federal government was not intended to fight a war on drugs.

The War on Drugs and Columbia

In March of 2000, Congressman Paul spoke on the House floor and stated that the way we are fighting the war on drugs is wrong and should be rethought. He stated that in his opinion, the war on drugs was being used as an excuse for intervention in Columbia.

Unintended Consequences of the Drug War

In June of 2002, Congressman Paul spoke on the House floor about the unintended consequences of the War on Drugs.

Unintended Consequences of the Drug War
Congressman Ron Paul U.S. House of Representatives June 28, 2002

Unintended Consequences of the Drug War Mr. Speaker, I highly recommend the attached article "Unintended Consequences'' by Thomas G. Donlan, from Barron's magazine, to my colleagues. This article provides an excellent explanation of the way current federal drug policy actually encourages international terrorist organizations, such as Al Queda, to use the drug trade to finance their activities. Far from being an argument to enhance the war on drugs, the reliance of terrorist organizations upon the drug trade is actually one more reason to reconsider current drug policy. Terrorist organizations are drawn to the drug trade because federal policy still enables drug dealers to reap huge profits from dealing illicit substances. As Mr. Donlan points out, pursuing a more rational drug policy would remove the exorbitant profits from the drug trade and thus remove the incentive for terrorists to produce and sell drugs.

In conclusion, I once again recommend Mr. Donlan's article to my colleagues. I hope the author's explanation of how the war on drugs is inadvertently strengthening terrorist organizations will lead them to embrace a more humane, constitutional and rational approach to dealing with the legitimate problems associated with drug abuse.

From Barron's, June 24, 2002 UNINTENDED CONSEQUENCES By Thomas G. Donlan

It's harvest time in Afghanistan. While the delegates to its grand council, the loya jurga, met under the great tent in Kabul and grudgingly acknowledged Hamid Karza as the president of a "transitional government,'' the impoverished farmers of Afghanistan reaped the rewards of their best cash crop, the despised opium poppy.

A few months ago, newspaper correspondents reported that the American proconsuls in Afghanistan had abandoned their hopes of reducing the opium harvest. They had considered buying the crop or paying farmers to destroy their poppies, but concluded that in the lawless Afghan hinterland they would simply be paying a bonus for non-delivery.

Karzai's previous "interim administration'' had banned opium production, but its writ did not run many miles beyond the city of Kabul. Warlords and provincial governors did as they pleased, and they were pleased to tax the opium trade and indeed participate in it as traders and transporters and protectors.

That's what the Taliban did for most of the years that the mullahs ruled and protected the al Qaeda terrorist network. In 2000, Afghanistan accounted for 71% of the world's opium supply. (Opium in turn is the building block for heroin, which most drug-fighters believe takes the greatest human toll and provides the greatest profit in the whole illicit industry.)

In 2001, the Taliban decreed an end to opium cultivation, not so much to carry favor with the West but to maintain the price: A bumper crop provided enough for two years of commerce. Indeed, the Taliban and al Qaeda may have earned more from their stockpiles in 2001 than they did from high production in 2000.

"As ye sow, so shall ye reap.'' The Biblical passage is an apt reminder that America's undercover agents nurtured Islamic fundamentalism to strengthen Afghan resistance to the Soviet Union. We reaped chaos in Afghanistan and a corps of well-trained fanatics bent on our destruction. America has also sown a war on drugs, and those same fanatics have harvested the profits.

This was not what we intended. Nor did we intend to let huge profits earned by terrorists and common criminals be used to corrupt police in every country where the trade reaches, including our own. Nor did we intend to put hundreds of thousands of Americans in prison for their participation in the drug trade. Nor did we intend to create periodic drug scarcities that turn addicts to crime to pay for their habits.

But all those things are unintended consequences of the war on drugs. Drug use is eventually a self-punishing mistake; the drug war turns out to be the same.

Now the war on drugs and the war on terrorism are beginning to look like two currents in a single river. Nearly half of the international terrorist groups on the State Department's list are involved in drug trafficking, either to raise money for their political aims or because successful drug commerce requires a ruthlessness indistinguishable from terrorism.

The currents don't always run together: The FBI and other federal law enforcement agencies acknowledge that the extra resources they are devoting to the detection and apprehension of terrorists are not new resources; the money agents and equipment come to the war on terror at the expense of the war on drugs.

In the domestic war on drugs, officials are trying to make the two currents serve their purposes. The government runs TV ads portraying young Americans confessing, "I killed grandmas. I killed daughters. I killed firemen. I killed policemen,'' and then warning the viewers, "Where do terrorists get their money? If you buy drugs, some of it may come from you.''

Bummer.

Like they wanted to do that? The buyers of drugs would be perfectly happy to buy them in a clean, well-lit store at reasonable prices, with the profits heavily taxed to support schools, medical benefits, or any other legitimate function of government- even police. That's how they buy cigarettes and liquor, neither of which finances international terrorists. (In a current prosecution, smuggling cigarettes from low-tax North Carolina to high-tax Michigan allegedly raised $1,500 for an alleged affiliate of Hamas. But big violence needs bigger sums from more lucrative sources.)

It was bad when drug laws gave the Mafia an opportunity to do big business. It was worse when the laws encouraged Colombian and Mexican drug cartels to obtain aircraft and heavy weapons. Now that the drug laws provide profits to people who want to kill Americans wholesale instead of retail, it's time to change the laws.

Using drugs is stupid enough; making the users finance international terrorists is even more foolish.

No More Taxpayer Funding for Columbian Drug War

In May of 2002, Congressman Paul spoke in committee about his desire to end funding for the failed drug war in Columbia.

No More Taxpayer Funding for the Failed Drug War in Colombia
Congressman Ron Paul U.S. House of Representatives May 23, 2002

No More Taxpayer Funds for the Failed Drug War in Colombia

Mr. PAUL. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of this amendment, and I compliment the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. McGovern) and the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Skelton) for bringing this to us. There has been a lot of discussion in the last 2 days, a lot about the deficit; and it strikes me as a bit of an irony, especially because it comes from many, and I have to say on both sides of the aisle, that do a lot to raise the national debt and the spending, and yet the debate went on and on. For some reason, I think there has been a lot of politics in the debate.

The interesting thing about what is going on right now, there is no politics in this. This is about war, and this is important, and this is about policy. It is said that we would like to get things like this through without a full discussion; but this, to me, is a key issue. This amendment is about whether or not we will change our policy in central America and, specifically, in Colombia.

Mr. Chairman, a year or so ago we appropriated $1.6 billion, and we went into Colombia with the intent of reducing drug usage. Instead it is up 25 percent. Drug usage is going up! They sprayed 210,000 acres, and now there are 53,000 more acres than ever before. It reminds me of Afghanistan. We have been in Afghanistan for less than a year and drug production is going up! I just wonder about the effectiveness of our drug program in Colombia.

But the theory is that we will be more effective if we change the policy. Pastrana tried to negotiate a peace and we were going too deal with the drugs, and we were going to have peace after 40 years of a civil war. Now Uribi is likely to become President and the approach is to different. He said, no more negotiations. We will be fighting and we want American help, and we want a change in policy, and we do not want spraying fields; we want helicopters to fight a war. That is what we are dealing with here. We should not let this go by without a full discussion and a full understanding, because in reality, there is no authority to support a military operation in Colombia.

What we are doing is we are appropriating for something for the administration to do without a proper authority. He has no authority to get involved in the civil war down there. We cannot imply that the issue of war is granted through the appropriation process. It is not the way the system works. The constitutional system works with granting explicit authority to wage war. The President has no authority, and now he wants the money; and we are ready to capitulate. Let me tell my colleagues, if we care about national defense, we must reconsider this.

This dilutes our national defense, it dilutes our forces, exposes our troops, takes away our weapons, increases the expenditures. If we ignore this issue I guess we can go back to demagoging the national debt limit.

So I would say, please, take a close look at this. We do not need to be expanding our role in Colombia. The drug war down there has not worked, and I do not expect this military war that we are about to wage to work either. We need to talk about national defense, and this does not help our national defense. I fear this. I feel less secure when we go into areas like this, because believe me, this is the way that we get troops in later on. We already have advisory forces in Colombia. Does anybody remember about advisors and then eventually having military follow in other times in our history. Yes, this is a very risky change in policy. This is not just a minor little increase in appropriation.

So I would ask, once again, where is the authority? Where does the authority exists for our President to go down and expand a war in Colombia when it has nothing to do with our national defense or our security? It has more to do with oil than our national security, and we know it. There is a pipeline down there that everybody complains that it is not well protected. It is even designated in legislation, and we deal with this at times. So I would say think about the real reasons behind us going down there.

It just happens that we have spread ourselves around the world; we are now in nine countries of the 15 countries that used to be part of the Soviet Union. And every country has something to do with oil. The Caspian Sea, Georgia, and why are we in the Persian Gulf? We are in the Persian Gulf to protect "our'' oil. Why are we involved with making and interfering with the democratically elected leader of Venezuela? I thought we were for democracy, and yet the reports are that we may well have participated in the attempt to have a democratically elected official in Venezuela removed. I think there is a little bit of oil in Venezuela as well. Could that have been the reason.

So I would say, once again, please take a look at this amendment. This amendment is a "yes'' vote, and I urge my colleagues to support it.

PBS Presidential Debate

In September of 2007, Congressman Paul stated in a PBS Presidential Debate that the war on drugs was a failure and should be ended.

South Carolina Debate

After the south Carolina Debate, Congressman Paul was interviewed and stated that he would pardon those convicted of non-violent drug crimes and end the war on drugs.

Campaign for Liberty

In September of 2008, Congressman Paul spoke at the Campaign for Liberty and discussed ending the drug war.

Pittsburgh Tribune Interview

In November of 2007, Congressman Paul was interviewed by the Pittsburgh Tribune and stated that he would end federal involvement in the drug war.

End the War on Drugs

In March of 2009, Congressman Paul issued a Texas Talk noting his desire to see the war on drugs ended.

End the War on Drugs

We have recently heard many shocking stories of brutal killings and ruthless violence related to drug cartels warring with Mexican and US officials. It is approaching the fever pitch of a full blown crisis. Unfortunately, the administration is not likely to waste this opportunity to further expand government. Hopefully, we can take a deep breath and look at history for the optimal way to deal with this dangerous situation, which is not unprecedented.

Alcohol prohibition in the 1920’s brought similar violence, gangs, lawlessness, corruption and brutality. The reason for the violence was not that making and selling alcohol was inherently dangerous. The violence came about because of the creation of a brutal black market which also drove profits through the roof. These profits enabled criminals like Al Capone to become incredibly wealthy, and militantly defensive of that wealth. Al Capone saw the repeal of Prohibition as a great threat, and indeed smuggling operations and gangland violence fell apart after repeal. Today, picking up a bottle of wine for dinner is a relatively benign transaction, and beer trucks travel openly and peacefully along their distribution routes.

Similarly today, the best way to fight violent drug cartels would be to pull the rug out from under their profits by bringing these transactions out into the sunlight. People who, unwisely, buy drugs would hardly opt for the back alley criminal dealer as a source, if a coffeehouse-style dispensary was an option. Moreover, a law-abiding dispensary is likely to check ID’s and refuse sale to minors, as bars and ABC stores tend to do very diligently. Think of all the time and resources law enforcement could save if they could instead focus on violent crimes, instead of this impossible nanny-state mandate of saving people from themselves!

If these reasons don’t convince the drug warriors, I would urge them to go back to the Constitution and consider where there is any authority to prohibit private personal choices like this. All of our freedoms – the freedom of religion and assembly, the freedom of speech, the right to bear arms, the right to be free from unnecessary government searches and seizures – stem from the precept that you own yourself and are responsible for your own choices. Prohibition laws negate self-ownership and are an absolute affront to the principles of freedom. I disagree vehemently with the recreational use of drugs, but at the same time, if people are only free to make good decisions, they are not truly free. In any case, states should decide for themselves how to handle these issues and the federal government should respect their choices.

My great concern is that instead of dealing deliberatively with the actual problems, Congress will be pressed again to act quickly without much thought or debate. I can’t think of a single problem we haven’t made worse that way. The panic generated by the looming crisis in Mexico should not be redirected into curtailing more rights, especially our second amendment rights, as seems to be in the works. Certainly, more gun laws in response to this violence will only serve to disarm lawful citizens. This is something to watch out for and stand up against. We have escalated the drug war enough to see it only escalates the violence and profits associated with drugs. It is time to try freedom instead.

Fair Sentencing Act

In July of 2010, Congressman Paul spoke on the House floor about the need to repeal the war on drugs. He discusses legislation the he had introduced to lessen sentencing disparities for Cocaine.

John Stossel Interview

In December of 2010, Congressman Paul was interviewed by John Stossel and spoke about ending federal laws dealing with drug use.

South Carolina Debate

In May of 2011, Congressman Paul participated in the Republican debate in South Carolina. He talks about his views on the federal government addressing drug laws.

CNN National Security Debate

On November 22, 2011 Congressman Paul participated in the national security debate on CNN. In that debate, he stated that he would like to see the war on drugs ended. He stated that the federal war on drugs was a failure

BLITZER: Congressman Paul, you're from Texas. Do you agree with your governor?

PAUL: Not entirely.

(LAUGHTER)

PAUL: No, the drug was mentioned. I think that's another war we ought to cancel, because it's... (APPLAUSE)

PAUL: ... to nobody's benefit. And that's where the violence is coming from. But, yes, we do have a national responsibility for our borders. What I'm, sort of, tired of is all the money spent and lives lost worrying about the borders between Pakistan and Afghanistan and forgetting about our borders between the United States and Mexico. We should think more about, you know, what we do at home.

We need better immigration services, obviously. But, you know, if you subsidize something or give people incentives, you get more of it. So if you give easy road to citizenship, you're going to have more illegals. If you have a weak economy, which is understandable and we should have prevented, that's understandable.

But giving -- mandating to the states and to Texas that we have to provide free medical care and free education, that's a great burden. It's a great burden to California and all the border states.

So I would say eliminate all these benefits and talk about eliminating the welfare state because it's detrimental not only to here but the people that come because that's the incentive to bring their families with them.

BLITZER: But I just want you to clarify. When you say cancel the war on drugs, does that mean legalize all these drugs? PAUL: I think the federal war on drugs is a total failure.

(APPLAUSE)

You can -- you can at least let sick people have marijuana because it's helpful, but compassionate conservatives say, well, we can't do this; we're going to put people who are sick and dying with cancer and they're being helped with marijuana, if they have multiple sclerosis -- the federal government's going in there and overriding state laws and putting people like that in prison.

Why don't we handle the drugs like we handle alcohol? Alcohol is a deadly drug. What about -- the real deadly drugs are the prescription drugs. They kill a lot more people than the illegal drugs.

So the drug war is out of control. I fear the drug war because it undermines our civil liberties. It magnifies our problems on the borders. We spend -- like, over the last 40 years, $1 trillion on this war. And believe me, the kids can still get the drugs. It just hasn't worked.

Sponsored and Cosponsored Legislation

This representative has not been identified as sponsoring or cosponsoring significant legislation related to this title.

User Comments

• • Summary
  • Election Results
  • Voting Statistics
  • Sponsored Bills
  • Controversies
  • Political Positions
  • Speeches / Debates