Looking for clarification regarding Dr. Paul's drug policies

unconstitutional wars. Thereby picking winners and losers. The war on, drugs, poverty, crime, cancer, terrorism, poverty, etc, etc, It's all double-talk to steal our rights and liberty by the use of force and violence.

All drug laws are victimless crimes. If someone is in jail for possession of a drug, it is a victimless crime.

That is NOT what Ron Paul means by "non-violent." What happens is that sometimes, someone commits an act of violence while ALSO using drugs. Or, they are engaged in selling drugs while ALSO threatening someone with a gun.

Someone who commits an act of VIOLENCE (or threat of violence) while ALSO doing something that is illegal vis-a-vis federal drug laws would NOT get a pardon. Anyone who was not using violence in the act of violating a federal drug law WOULD get a pardon.

Also, simply "releasing" from jail/prison is NOT a pardon. Pardon means they are released AND their record is voided as if they never were convicted or even accused. That way, they are not an "ex-con."

It is interesting to note that Portugal made drugs legal about 10 years ago and you don't hear horror stories. Many countries in South America make simple drug possession and use legal, or so minor that cops don't pay attention. No serious problems.

The ONE place in the world where people are dying in the streets because of drugs is in the corridor from Mexico to the USA to meet the demand for drugs, and that is ONLY due to the laws which create the black market in the first place.

And no, it would not make it simpler to "just" reclassify one drug or another. The simplest solution is to inform the US Attorney General to NOT prosecute violations of federal drug laws because there is NO CONSTITUTIONAL AUTHORITY to do so, and then proceed to release and pardon those currently in federal prison on a case-by-case basis (reviewing to make sure it was a non-violent offense).

"just reclassify marijuana based on its ability to be used as a medicine and because it gets reclassified and it no longer becomes a schedule 1 narcotic, those people go free?"
- this will be more difficult when experts cannot agree- understandably due to lobbies - some people don't want the gravy train to stop.
- more importantly, your perspective still reflects central planning and control, which is what we are trying to correct.
- it's precisely those complex, delicate, and personal, and irrational issues that gets people divided, and conquered, that we need to handle at local communities-away from central government. That would empower us and allow us to produce creative and at times (locally) disastrous solutions. With more localized decision making, the best ideas get to be tested out and voted on without strangling our individual liberties.
- odds are not proof. If proven guilty, then do not pardon. If no record of guilt, then by law, they should be free; other than the "guilt" through this I'll-conceived drug law(s).

First, he means pardon all "federal" non violent drug offenders. He would not step into the state criminal system.

Second, he does not advocate use of drugs and would leave it to each state to decide what would be legal or not.

Thirdly - ignorant Americans need to recall prohibition. This country decided that the cumulitive negative effects of alcohol were just too great for society to bare. Since there was still the rule of law they followed the correct path and ammendend the US Constituion. What happend next?

The level of crime, violence and corruption was so great that the people realized all the evils of legal alcohol were less distructive to society than prohibition.
This isn't a theory or opinion it is a freaking fact that anyone with the sense g-d gave a doorknob should be able to grasp.

Prohibition? crimes fundamental tool of empowerment.

"I recently saw a video where Ron Paul, when asked what he would do with all the non-violent drug offenders once he is in office, said that he would pardon all non-violent drug offenders."

Let's be very clear with respect to pardons for victimless offenders (drug offenders, tax protesters, etc.). Presidents only exercise authority to pardon Federal convictions. NOT state convictions. Federal convictions.

"that would allow people to be pardoned for committing a crime that is no longer considered a crime?"

At the federal level yes. Now at the state level, I'm no attorney, but I would say no. Each state enacted narcotic laws known as "uniform state narcotic statutes" which later became federalized with the passage of the Uniform State Narcotics Act. So chances are, your state had enacted narcotic prohibition BEFORE the federal government. The 10th amendment leaves domestic crime to the states.

I hope this answers your question, or inspires someone else (preferably an attorney) to provide a better answer.

I went to graduate school with Carl Hart, Ph.D., who is a tenured professor at Columbia University where his cutting-edge human research on the effects of illicit drugs is well respected around the world.

He also authors the most popular college text book on drug use and abuse "Drugs and Human Behavior" (Harper Row)

He is also the authority on how minorities are unfairly targeted by the judicial system in the War on Drugs. I think he would help Ron Paul if the campaign reached out to him.

He has been featured in WIRED magazine

http://www.wired.co.uk/magazine/archive/2010/02/features/car...

and most recently in Scientific American where his review on the cognitive effects of Meth effectively undermined much of the government’s propaganda (caused quite a stir at NIH) on the negative effects of Methamphetamine in humans.

Meth Hype Could Undermine Good Medicine

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=hype-over-t...

Overstating the dangers of methamphetamine may impede treatment of drug abusers, asserts a review by Columbia University researchers

1) To be clear, because there is not authority in the Constitution for the government to control "dangerous" drugs, he wants to honor the (10th Amendment to the) Constitution, reserving drug laws to the states, or to the poeople.

2) I believe he would thus be pardoning for Federal sentences, not for state sentences. He may well want to pardon for immoral State sentences, but the principle of States' Rights will be important to him to underline that he is likely not to blur the line.

3) Your concerns about who and when should largely be targeted to the state you live in. We'd have 50 states with varying laws -- as we do about prostitution.