Like I said, I do not see users as criminals, this makes sense to me. But big dealers are definitely criminals if you take into account the damage and destruction they cause to individuals and their environment. The government should be able to limit the damage these people cause to society.
@TWSceptic why are there big dealers? because drugs are illegal it forces up the prices. just study prohibition of alcohol. If you really want to know why drugs were made illegal look into the banking cartel and the CIA, DEA, ATF. The banks launder the money for the drug cartels they support. do a google search for Wachovia, wells fargo caught laundering drug money. look for a bloomberg article
No victim = no crime. Until there is an individual victim or evidence leading to an individual victim you can never put up a defense. That's why if you kill a bunch of people you get judged on each individual count of murder. Other than that it's up to you vs. the conflicting interest of the State.
As a law enforcement officer, I can tell you that you're absolutely correct on what you're saying.
The "War on Drugs" is and always has been a complete failure. We are criminalizing personal use of substances, and we prop up and create a whole underground society of drug lords who make millions of dollars simply because drugs are illegal.
Remember the Al Capones? They came about because of Prohibition; when alcohol was illegal, they could make big bucks selling it illegally.
@FoxeoVideos Yes but should we allow hard drugs to be sold in Walmart? I think there needs to be some policy regarding these substances, but users should be regarded as addicts, not criminals. I still believe we should find & arrest the big dealers since they are the source of the problem. 'War on drugs' is a fail but to go from that to 'no holds barred' is something I do not believe in.
@TWSceptic Walmart would not sell hard drugs even if it were legal. Trust me.
Notice how many stores can sell ammunition but don't, for fear of lawsuits? That's a bad thing in the case of ammunition, but it would also affect drug sales. Narcotics would not be sold without a prescription because people would fear liability.
However, addicts with personal use quantities would not tie up the system. What happens if I arrest a person with a blunt?
@TWSceptic Let's say I arrest this guy with a blunt of marijuana. Here's what happens:
I write up a report and arrest ticket. It is reviewed by superiors, forwarded to a bureau. The suspect is transported, gas is used. Several sally port clerks log him into jail. He gets free medical care, a bed, food, and additional amenities.
He then gets several days in court. There's a judge, prosecutor, defense attorney, court clerk(s), and several bailiffs. ALL paid for by your taxes.
For $1.20/ea we can mail a "For Liberty Re-cut" DVD and a Super Brochure to 1 Republican Supervoter, accompanied by a letter from New York Times' best-selling author Thomas E. Woods.
I loled at "that is the dictionary definition of futility". You sir, have a very clear mind and is in the same wavelength as Ron Paul's views. And you articulate your sentences beautifully.
I think it's special that drug addiction is considered a disease by the medical community yet we lock people up for it. One may argue that no one forced them to take drugs so therefore they should be punished but, in a sense, it is equivalent to arresting someone for having HIV or an STD in that no one forced them to have sex. The absurdity of the 'war on drugs' knows no bounds. It is a 'war' where our own friends and family become the enemy. Excellent video Tom.
The fact is also that your child can get hold of drugs easier than alcohol! Because a lot of drug dealers are not very ethical! And they are not regulated! (not that I believe in regulation though)
Again, well said tom, I can't fault you! There are so many arguments you can take on this subject it's just ridiculous! All people tend to fall back on is "well it's bad for you" (while flouride is just dandy!) and "It creates gangs" or "I want to protect my kids!"
They're all plain stupid!... Making the drugs illegal REDUCES the quality of the drugs! Dealers do not have quality control!
Prohibition creates gangs! Who fights over alcohol territory now?
But Woods, one of your favorite bands is Porcupine Tree, one of the bands that brought back psicodelic rock, you must have been tempted to try at least LSD.. but back to the point, i live in Mexico and until a couple of year sago, i could get mariguana and cocaine relatively easy, and my love affair with drugs lasted about 3 years, now i´m a productive citizen, like most of the people that i have meet, they try drugs, they got bored with them and move on
Very nice speaking Mr. Woods, I've been a fan of you, Dr. Paul, Austrian Econ and mises.org for a long time now. I like your "We gotta CRACK through this". Nice!
Wow, he even talks about property seizure and how the vast majority aren't convicted of a crime and don't even challenge the seizure, b/c the gov't has made the standards nearly impossible to meet. As a citizen here you are supposedly "innocent until proven guilty", but in these cases your PROPERTY is on trial, and it is guilty until proven innocent. Just another crooked source of revenue for the state and their nearly-autonomous "anti-drug task forces".
@JRJigsawyer Two weeks ago, I was waiting on the bus after a doctor's appointment. I'm prescribed 150 Percocets every month and since the bus ride, my appointment, and the time I spent waiting on the bus took over 5 hours, I decided to take my 3rd dose for the day. A cop saw me take it and made a big deal about it. I mistakenly allowed him to search my purse - he found a spoon that I'd ONLY eaten with and he gave me a ticket for drug paraphernalia. I owe the court $450. It's bullshit.
Thank you, Mr. Woods, that is a great video and I hope I can share it all around, but right now I'm disabled on facebook for posting too many links, ugh.
It dosnt take a rocket scientist to see that the WOD is an uter failure. I just saw an article "orginized crime the real winner of the WOD" PPl are just now realizing that prohibtion didnt work in the 30's and dosnt work now. fucking dumb mother fucking douche bags that are the first generation to pass on an america that is worse than the one they recieved fucking cocksuckers. Thanks alot mom and dad, unlce jimmy, Uncle Patrica,and uncle fucking dick, I am a POW in the WOD
If I'm not misstaken it's a bust of the late, great Ludvig von Mises. An inspiration and guiding light for everyone who takes liberty seriously. His spirit is alive and well to say the least, may he rest in peace.
"It is sometimes argued that one of the benefits of legalizing addictive drugs is that they could be taxed, and the government revenues enhanced. From this perspective, this would be the only valid case against legalization." – Walter Block
I don't get the "squariest of the square" attitude. Why not actively seek out and try drugs? I was the squariest of the square until I sought out cannabis, and it turns out to be a fantastic recreational experience. I'm not saying anyone's wrong for being sober, only that I don't understand why you wouldn't want to try a hallucinogenic experience once or twice for the sake of scientific curiosity. Your brain gets transported another dimension, it's COMPLETELY unique! How is that not tempting?
If the Government has this parental power over us, where does it end? What is to, in principle, stop them from forcing us to eat 'right' and excercise, and keep away from smoking and drinking and anything else that strikes there fancy.. The matter is fundamentally one of Liberty.. Do we have the right to live our own lifes or not?
We can count on Tom Woods as a consistent beacon of liberty and reason. Crimes should be limited to violations of personal, property and civil rights, rather than diluting the concept with the political status of given substances.
Hey Tom, how are you? I was wondering if you have read Dr. Edwin Vieira's book titled "Constitutional Homeland Security". If you have what do you think of it, and if you have not how can I get a copy to you?
There is a movement by (ex) law enforcers against this witch hunt on drugs, drugs should be legalized, specially soft drugs, heroine and cocaine on doctors prescription.
I agree with your synopsis about the "War on Drugs," but I do question the wisdom of the mundanes collectively in how they react in other ongoing wars, the "War on Guns," "War on Tobacco," etc., etc.
"...people want something, they're going to get it" is true, yet if/when the government bans tobacco, or even guns in many locales, the mundane majority hardly squeaks about it and abides by it. Ergo, the government/media complex influences the hapless mundane, just not in the mind-altering arena.
Want to make a profit? Devise a conflict where you can finance it on one side, and launder money for the other side. Endless conflict driven by political and racial antagonisms ... reminds me of Bill Will's quote of the 1892 Bankers Assoc Magazine. "we must keep the people busy with political antagonisms" What better than endless war profits over entrenched moral values. Divide and Profit.
mr. woods: thanks for laying it out like it is. i believe one should not consider the drug war without considering it's direct connection to the prison industrial complex. the drug war is used to feed the prisons and keep them stuffed to the rafters with non-violent offenders. also the intent of the 3 strikes legislation. one must also consider the secondary crime: stealing to get money to buy drugs, killing over drug disputes, kidnapping in for ranson in columbia, etc. check it out.
Tom, I'ld like to sugest you to read about the so called "Foro de São Paulo", an alliance between all the left parties in latin America and FARC. I'm from Brazil and they have a huge influence here, as they have and pretty much all the continent. This is not only about the drugs, you have many countries fueling FARC with money and protection, what obviously has great impact in America. You should contact Olavo de Carvalho, he lives in Richmond-VA and knows everything there is to know about it.
the war is lost. Our treasuries on the state and federal levels are spent. How about the life-changing gospel to end the dependency instead of the iron fist of the state.
Hey Tom. Towards the end of your video you said "alleged war on drugs". Do you mean that the war has failed or that the government is pretending to go to war on drugs?
@yuppyguitar1 It was a poor choice of words on my part. I was thinking of the government's repeated use of "war" to describe some futile bureaucratic crusade.
Shared on facebook with all my conservative Christian family and friends. They all think I went hippie. Can't wait to talk to you tomorrow night in the NYC Libertyfest chat room.
Current comparisons can be made to those during prohibition. Gangs, organized crime, corruption, payoffs of politicians, etc. Alcohol is now readily available to those who must have it and at a more affordable price and high quality yet not everyone uses and abuses it. If alcohol was not taxed it would be even cheaper and the BATF would become the BTF. Free people should be allowed to make stupid decisions as they will regardless of what is legal and illegal. It will still be OK to say no!
Did you say we need to CRACK through the war on drugs?
That's probable cause right there, sir. I'm going to have to ask you to step over here and put your hands on the patrol car. You don't have anything dangerous on you, do you? Weapons? Drug paraphernalia?
@TomWoodsTV Hmm.. thought I saw the pink and blue on the spine. Oh well. I'll look up Thaddeus Russell on Amazon.
Anyway, I've always seen myself favoring legalizing drugs due to the logic that follows tolerating the government to regulate what people are allowed to consume. However, the one thing that has always caused an internal rebuttal is China's unfortunate episode with Opium. What is the assurance that Americans will still remain productive after legalizing all currently illegal drugs?
@Goodatconnect4 I don't see productivity levels as the question we should be asking. The important question should be, how can we best respect the rights of human beings?
You & I both seem to be in accord that it is a natural right for one to do with his body as he pleases (or she). It seems the reason why drugs are illegal has to do with the destructive effects they have on large groups of individuals (eg China's Opium) more so than any deliberate attempt to deny natural rights (At least, I hope). Worded differently,
"What assurance is there that American society (I hate that word) will be remain in place if illicit drugs are legalized?"
@Goodatconnect4 Again, if the goal is respecting human rights, then the goal should not be society building at the expense of freedom.
Also I think providing safety as the reason for banning drugs is just a smokescreen for the corporate interests that would be hurt by legalization of marijuana. Look no further than alcohol for the contradiction.
Freedom must be breached to a certain extent if we are to live peacefully. Would you say that I should be free to steal? We have laws that prohibit me from doing so. My freedom has been limited, in order to preserve "society," as done for centuries.
I'm familiar with the story explaining why hemp and marijuana are illegal, but I don't think it's unnatural for governments to feel that they should protect people from foreign substances; the government is looking at it from a different angle.
@Goodatconnect4 There's no consistency in the government's approach drugs. More dangerous and non-beneficial drugs like alcohol are legal while beneficial such ones such a marijuana are illegal. Furthermore if you're big pharma its ok to sell drugs that cause heartattacks, cancer, etc, as long as uncle sam can get tax revenue out of it. Totally inconsistent and they should stay out of it.
I don't believe freedom has to be breached. Naturally, we are not free to violate others' freedom.
History is filled with brutal savages, nations, and groups that were not principled enough to respect the freedom of others; do you advocate anarchy regardless?
@Goodatconnect4 I agree, in fact, in using the word state, by default freedom is being abridged in some way. A state isn't the only solution to defense.
Anarchy then be the lack of state, but this doesn't imply lack of organized society capable of defending itself from other nations. Actually, in an anarchistic society that values freedom above all else, I'd think that defense would be a top priority.
As soon as political organization is established, there is a state by definition. Anarchy is not organization, but maybe voluntary conditions; in which case, there is no guarantee that one will defend another. Locke said that this is pretty much how political states were formed in the very beginning. The word society is a VERY subjective term left to a variety of implications (anywhere from a band of people to an entire nation) and I try to avoid using it. I don't see anarchy as plausible.
@Goodatconnect4 As is the word state, as you've demonstrated. :)
State to me means coercion, what it doesn't mean is voluntary associations or actions, we have different words for that, which I've used. History has pretty well demonstrated numerous instances of how states evolve and what the end game is for the subjects of such states.
So instead of voluntary defenders, you'd prefer the soviet way, where we march them into battle with guns pointed behind them, lest they decide to surrender.
I'm not a totalitarian. If you mean to say that I prefer a draft, you're incorrect. If you mean by "voluntary defenders" in anarchy, those who give their word to defend and it is not enforced by contract, then that is what I oppose. What I meant is that there cannot be political organization (a state) in anarchy as it is a contradiction of terms. State may be subjective, but I use it here to suggest any of a multitude of means of political organization, as is the standard definition.
@Goodatconnect4 Its only contradictory in the way you define anarchy. But if you look at how I've defined it, there is not. You could try to say encouraged voluntarism is political organisation and therefore a state, but it is not, because there is no coercion involved. That's the distinction. Political organization doesn't imply a state when it is voluntary. People have freedom to opt out if they wish. Also I don't know what "standard" definition of state you're talking about.
Standard, meaning from a dictionary (Webster's Online). I've defined anarchy in how it has always been defined: "the absence of law/government." If there is political organization, that has a capability to make laws, then there cannot be anarchy; in that case, there has to be a state. I can voluntarily join the Democratic or Republican party at anytime, I'm just trying to voluntarily get involved in the decisions of the state. People are allowed to leave a state whenever they wish as well.
@Goodatconnect4 Uh, no, Again, you can have political organization without the coercion of law. Again, the key word is "voluntary". And also no, you cannot voluntarily decide not to participate in United States, unless prison is your idea of freedom. When I was born, I don't remember volunteering to sign a contract to pay taxes or to be subjected to any of the other whims of the power-hungry.
What would this political organization do? I can leave the US whenever I want to (emigration). Taxes, as much as they suck, are necessary to pay the military, to make/enforce laws, and provide other services that promote the "general welfare" of all of us.
@Goodatconnect4 Yes, you can abandon your home, family, job, etc, if you disagree with any mandate. That doesn't sound voluntary at all. Thats sort of like being born in an estate inherited from your father, then one day a man comes and says, you must give me 50% of your possessions/wealth "voluntarily". If you refuse, I'll imprison you, but I'll allow you the option of selling the estate and moving.
Taxes are only necessary when you believe coercion is the solution to social problems.
Every action performed by an individual is voluntary, by definition, and every action yields consequences (cause and effect). "50%.." that scenario is a straw-man. Define "social problems." I'm not advocating that taxes pay for "social problems," that's another straw-man.
What of my question about political organizations?
@Goodatconnect4 Surely you're able to realize that words have several meanings, and since you're so fond of dictionary definitions, here's voluntary: 6. law a. acting or done without legal obligation, compulsion, or persuasion
Remember, context is important.
You said that taxes are necessary to pay for military. So if defense according to you is not a problem to be solved, what exactly have I misrepresented here?
Also, governments do not collect 50% in taxes by force?
The assumption you have is that it will be done, when the definition says that it doesn't have to be done. When I choose to act, I do so with an incentive. If someone says "pay tax" I have an incentive for each choice. Voluntary or not, all actions have consequences.
When did I ever say that defense is not a problem to be solved? Define "social problem."
Stop with the 50%, it's dishonest. You've exaggerated my position, to what I never advocated, to refute my point= straw man.
@Goodatconnect4 Not in the slightest. If you're compelled by law to do something, it isn't voluntary, and that's the point that makes democracy tyranny. You're the kind of pedantic person that would say the slaves worked on a voluntary basis. You'd make Harry Reid here proud: watch?v=R7mRSI8yWwg
Change the 50% to 1%, its still arbitrary when you completely miss the point.
First you said we need taxes for a military, then you said " I'm not advocating that taxes pay for "social problems""
You've yet to define "social problems." Is access to adequate healthcare a social problem? I don't think taxes should pay for that. I'm not advocating specific quantities of taxes, stop bringing it up. I never said that all actions are all totally voluntary, but the individual has to have some interest or end in mind in order to act or else it wouldn't be done. Of course, these actions are influenced by conditions.
If you continue to straw man and ad hominem, I'm going to stop responding.
@Goodatconnect4 Social problems are for you to define. Its just a term I used to label the things you think people should be coerced into paying for, like military. So it is up to you to define those things. As I don't believe there are things that need solving by coercion, there is nothing for me to define.
Thats quite a back step on your meaning of voluntary. The new definition is basically meaningless. My argument is still coercion vs voluntary action. We shouldn't be forcing people to act.
I never intentionally used the term "social problems" except for referring to your original usage and have no use for it (agree to drop it?). I've meant voluntary in that sense from the beginning, except for when questioning your use of it to better understand your position. Coercion is necessary (it's one of the reasons why this world has 6.9 billion people instead of a few million) in order to preserve what Hayek called the extended order. I'll certainly agree that there's a limit though.
@Goodatconnect4 Why necessary? And you say that like having millions would be worse than having billions. I'm not convinced we need billions of humans on the Earth, but still confused on why population growth has anything to do with state force. If anything states are trending toward population reduction these days.
Have you read The Fatal Conceit? It's a great book that goes into the rise of modern civilization and contains information on why capitalism, in tune with modest government, has sustained the world more than any other system. I cite the number of people to show how the standard of living has risen to such a level that the world can support so much people. Certainly, governments are not THE reason for prosperity, but over time, they have contributed to the rise in prosperity through capitalism.
@Goodatconnect4 Conjecture. However, what we do have proof of is the massive murder, starvation, and usurpation of human rights, and general human suffering/misery that states have directly caused.
It's not conjecture. Traditions formed by groups, reflected by governments, have led to growth of some groups & the demise of others. For instance, Hayek cites the institution of private property rights protected by government in order to bolster the evolution of trade and the market economy. He argues against 'planned evolution.' He doesn't praise law, in and of itself, but the evolution of law and uses this to show that cultural evolution wasn't planned but rose from "guess and check" methods.
How in the blue hell can you still maintain that government, which only TAKES money out of the market and recirculate it (after sticking a percentage into its own pocket as "salaries"), is even partially responsible for prosperity? That's like saying that the mafia is wrong, but a thief (robber in modesty) is helping the economy grow. Ever heard of the broken window fallacy? There can be no increase in prosperity from FORCE.
Read Hayek's "The Fatal Conceit." I was not talking about the government in the manner of stimulus or projects which Bastiat obliterated in the nineteenth century by taking the example of James B. I was talking about how the government keeps traditions, initially formed by people, in place through law and that it is these traditions that lead to the rise of some civilizations and the decline of others. For instance, the Soviet Union didn't even last 80 years for obvious reasons.
Find an answer to this question that is consistent with Libertarianism, such as through an appeal to Misesian social order, and your question will be revealed as being inherently nonsensical. : )
Like I said, I do not see users as criminals, this makes sense to me. But big dealers are definitely criminals if you take into account the damage and destruction they cause to individuals and their environment. The government should be able to limit the damage these people cause to society.
TWSceptic 1 month ago
@TWSceptic why are there big dealers? because drugs are illegal it forces up the prices. just study prohibition of alcohol. If you really want to know why drugs were made illegal look into the banking cartel and the CIA, DEA, ATF. The banks launder the money for the drug cartels they support. do a google search for Wachovia, wells fargo caught laundering drug money. look for a bloomberg article
Littlewing1977 1 month ago
@Littlewing1977 the headline is Banks Financing Mexico Gangs Admitted in Wells Fargo Deal
Littlewing1977 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
No victim = no crime. Until there is an individual victim or evidence leading to an individual victim you can never put up a defense. That's why if you kill a bunch of people you get judged on each individual count of murder. Other than that it's up to you vs. the conflicting interest of the State.
yinzjagoffs 2 months ago
As a law enforcement officer, I can tell you that you're absolutely correct on what you're saying.
The "War on Drugs" is and always has been a complete failure. We are criminalizing personal use of substances, and we prop up and create a whole underground society of drug lords who make millions of dollars simply because drugs are illegal.
Remember the Al Capones? They came about because of Prohibition; when alcohol was illegal, they could make big bucks selling it illegally.
FoxeoVideos 2 months ago
@FoxeoVideos Yes but should we allow hard drugs to be sold in Walmart? I think there needs to be some policy regarding these substances, but users should be regarded as addicts, not criminals. I still believe we should find & arrest the big dealers since they are the source of the problem. 'War on drugs' is a fail but to go from that to 'no holds barred' is something I do not believe in.
TWSceptic 1 month ago
@TWSceptic Walmart would not sell hard drugs even if it were legal. Trust me.
Notice how many stores can sell ammunition but don't, for fear of lawsuits? That's a bad thing in the case of ammunition, but it would also affect drug sales. Narcotics would not be sold without a prescription because people would fear liability.
However, addicts with personal use quantities would not tie up the system. What happens if I arrest a person with a blunt?
CONTINUED in next comment
FoxeoVideos 1 month ago
@TWSceptic Let's say I arrest this guy with a blunt of marijuana. Here's what happens:
I write up a report and arrest ticket. It is reviewed by superiors, forwarded to a bureau. The suspect is transported, gas is used. Several sally port clerks log him into jail. He gets free medical care, a bed, food, and additional amenities.
He then gets several days in court. There's a judge, prosecutor, defense attorney, court clerk(s), and several bailiffs. ALL paid for by your taxes.
FoxeoVideos 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
This will win us Iowa!!!
Go to SUPERVOTERBOMB [dot] com
For $1.20/ea we can mail a "For Liberty Re-cut" DVD and a Super Brochure to 1 Republican Supervoter, accompanied by a letter from New York Times' best-selling author Thomas E. Woods.
SchleckBros 3 months ago in playlist More videos from TomWoodsTV
I loled at "that is the dictionary definition of futility". You sir, have a very clear mind and is in the same wavelength as Ron Paul's views. And you articulate your sentences beautifully.
muraliavarma 4 months ago
I think it's special that drug addiction is considered a disease by the medical community yet we lock people up for it. One may argue that no one forced them to take drugs so therefore they should be punished but, in a sense, it is equivalent to arresting someone for having HIV or an STD in that no one forced them to have sex. The absurdity of the 'war on drugs' knows no bounds. It is a 'war' where our own friends and family become the enemy. Excellent video Tom.
hootahsesh 4 months ago
The fact is also that your child can get hold of drugs easier than alcohol! Because a lot of drug dealers are not very ethical! And they are not regulated! (not that I believe in regulation though)
snaz27 4 months ago
Again, well said tom, I can't fault you! There are so many arguments you can take on this subject it's just ridiculous! All people tend to fall back on is "well it's bad for you" (while flouride is just dandy!) and "It creates gangs" or "I want to protect my kids!"
They're all plain stupid!... Making the drugs illegal REDUCES the quality of the drugs! Dealers do not have quality control!
Prohibition creates gangs! Who fights over alcohol territory now?
snaz27 4 months ago
But Woods, one of your favorite bands is Porcupine Tree, one of the bands that brought back psicodelic rock, you must have been tempted to try at least LSD.. but back to the point, i live in Mexico and until a couple of year sago, i could get mariguana and cocaine relatively easy, and my love affair with drugs lasted about 3 years, now i´m a productive citizen, like most of the people that i have meet, they try drugs, they got bored with them and move on
megatherium100 4 months ago
these videos are brilliant
thespacialone 5 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
*** Black THIS Out Moneybomb – October 19th ***
Inspired by the mainstream media's blatantly biased reporting of Ron Paul.
Pledge at BlackTHISOut[dot]com
Please spread the word!
SchleckBros 5 months ago in playlist More videos from TomWoodsTV
Very nice speaking Mr. Woods, I've been a fan of you, Dr. Paul, Austrian Econ and mises.org for a long time now. I like your "We gotta CRACK through this". Nice!
Cloudrunner1 5 months ago
Wow, he even talks about property seizure and how the vast majority aren't convicted of a crime and don't even challenge the seizure, b/c the gov't has made the standards nearly impossible to meet. As a citizen here you are supposedly "innocent until proven guilty", but in these cases your PROPERTY is on trial, and it is guilty until proven innocent. Just another crooked source of revenue for the state and their nearly-autonomous "anti-drug task forces".
JRJigsawyer 6 months ago
@JRJigsawyer Two weeks ago, I was waiting on the bus after a doctor's appointment. I'm prescribed 150 Percocets every month and since the bus ride, my appointment, and the time I spent waiting on the bus took over 5 hours, I decided to take my 3rd dose for the day. A cop saw me take it and made a big deal about it. I mistakenly allowed him to search my purse - he found a spoon that I'd ONLY eaten with and he gave me a ticket for drug paraphernalia. I owe the court $450. It's bullshit.
Swallowchllorox 4 months ago
*Gary Johnson looks around*
'I smoked pot as later as 2008'
*gasp*
Samsgarden 6 months ago
What about Iran Contra!~ Oliver North admitted to selling drugs to fund CIA operations along with weapons... He is selling real estate now
missrockz 6 months ago
Thank you, Mr. Woods, that is a great video and I hope I can share it all around, but right now I'm disabled on facebook for posting too many links, ugh.
megaprinciples 7 months ago
It dosnt take a rocket scientist to see that the WOD is an uter failure. I just saw an article "orginized crime the real winner of the WOD" PPl are just now realizing that prohibtion didnt work in the 30's and dosnt work now. fucking dumb mother fucking douche bags that are the first generation to pass on an america that is worse than the one they recieved fucking cocksuckers. Thanks alot mom and dad, unlce jimmy, Uncle Patrica,and uncle fucking dick, I am a POW in the WOD
tsharpmac420 8 months ago
so true... Are the majority of people that weak minded to be brainwashed that easily?
frosteddubstep 8 months ago
Comment removed
callmeyang 8 months ago
Everybody should watch the videos of the US military paying Aghanis to grow poppies. War on drugs my ass.
OmarThePug 8 months ago
Who's the bust of the in background Tom? It kind of reminds me of Voltaire.
kasrkinmullet 9 months ago
@kasrkinmullet
If I'm not misstaken it's a bust of the late, great Ludvig von Mises. An inspiration and guiding light for everyone who takes liberty seriously. His spirit is alive and well to say the least, may he rest in peace.
HunterfromtheFuture 9 months ago
What out for those cannabis plants armed with AK-47s, planning to attack at any moment! They said we're at war against them, right?
furyofbongos 9 months ago
Great video as always Tom
bluezoso 9 months ago
Hats of to you, mr. Woods.
Rommel266 9 months ago
"It is sometimes argued that one of the benefits of legalizing addictive drugs is that they could be taxed, and the government revenues enhanced. From this perspective, this would be the only valid case against legalization." – Walter Block
...Now that's funny!
Beowulfsonur 9 months ago
@TomWoodsTV...Very well stated sir!
Beowulfsonur 9 months ago
Oh God bless you Tom Woods!
rollsroyce707 9 months ago
I don't get the "squariest of the square" attitude. Why not actively seek out and try drugs? I was the squariest of the square until I sought out cannabis, and it turns out to be a fantastic recreational experience. I'm not saying anyone's wrong for being sober, only that I don't understand why you wouldn't want to try a hallucinogenic experience once or twice for the sake of scientific curiosity. Your brain gets transported another dimension, it's COMPLETELY unique! How is that not tempting?
Hostile 9 months ago
Tom, were you a fan of comedian Bill Hicks? He said it best:
"George Bush said 'we're losing the war on drugs'. That implies there's a war going on and people sitting around getting high are WINNING IT!"
Chad9976 9 months ago
If the Government has this parental power over us, where does it end? What is to, in principle, stop them from forcing us to eat 'right' and excercise, and keep away from smoking and drinking and anything else that strikes there fancy.. The matter is fundamentally one of Liberty.. Do we have the right to live our own lifes or not?
God bless you all.
Great video Mr. Woods.
gtkpaladin 9 months ago
Great piece Tom. This is a brief, concise clip of what Catherine Austin Fitts often discusses, Narco economics.
becauseicare2 9 months ago
We can count on Tom Woods as a consistent beacon of liberty and reason. Crimes should be limited to violations of personal, property and civil rights, rather than diluting the concept with the political status of given substances.
LibertyPen 9 months ago
Hey Tom, how are you? I was wondering if you have read Dr. Edwin Vieira's book titled "Constitutional Homeland Security". If you have what do you think of it, and if you have not how can I get a copy to you?
12Tamtui 9 months ago
Gotta love Tom! Always making sense.
JamJHolmes 9 months ago
When are you going to help Ron Paul with his "Interview with a Zombie" video?
elbuggo 9 months ago
It's foolhardy to assume laws diminish the law of supply and demand.
Buergs323 9 months ago
There is a movement by (ex) law enforcers against this witch hunt on drugs, drugs should be legalized, specially soft drugs, heroine and cocaine on doctors prescription.
Tralgit 9 months ago
Im smoking a big fat joint as a toast to this spectacular video :-)
TheCapitalistdog 9 months ago
I've never disagreed with you Dr Woods until now. I'm my humble opinion, you are the "coolest of the cool." I don't think you're square at all.
chrispolk76 9 months ago
people od in prison in the hole. if people want it bad enough they will get it
kaihoosi1 9 months ago
I agree with your synopsis about the "War on Drugs," but I do question the wisdom of the mundanes collectively in how they react in other ongoing wars, the "War on Guns," "War on Tobacco," etc., etc.
"...people want something, they're going to get it" is true, yet if/when the government bans tobacco, or even guns in many locales, the mundane majority hardly squeaks about it and abides by it. Ergo, the government/media complex influences the hapless mundane, just not in the mind-altering arena.
mung0jerry 9 months ago
Want to make a profit? Devise a conflict where you can finance it on one side, and launder money for the other side. Endless conflict driven by political and racial antagonisms ... reminds me of Bill Will's quote of the 1892 Bankers Assoc Magazine. "we must keep the people busy with political antagonisms" What better than endless war profits over entrenched moral values. Divide and Profit.
mersk100 9 months ago
There is nothing humane about the government.
dooglio 9 months ago
what would it take to turn something around like this
TheGodofAtheists 9 months ago
Another great video. Thanks Tom!
HasserVision 9 months ago
mr. woods: thanks for laying it out like it is. i believe one should not consider the drug war without considering it's direct connection to the prison industrial complex. the drug war is used to feed the prisons and keep them stuffed to the rafters with non-violent offenders. also the intent of the 3 strikes legislation. one must also consider the secondary crime: stealing to get money to buy drugs, killing over drug disputes, kidnapping in for ranson in columbia, etc. check it out.
RakeRocter 9 months ago
Tom, I'ld like to sugest you to read about the so called "Foro de São Paulo", an alliance between all the left parties in latin America and FARC. I'm from Brazil and they have a huge influence here, as they have and pretty much all the continent. This is not only about the drugs, you have many countries fueling FARC with money and protection, what obviously has great impact in America. You should contact Olavo de Carvalho, he lives in Richmond-VA and knows everything there is to know about it.
mcanatto 9 months ago
I'm loving your books. I'm listening to your audio book Nullification now. Meltdown was great.
justintempler 9 months ago
the war is lost. Our treasuries on the state and federal levels are spent. How about the life-changing gospel to end the dependency instead of the iron fist of the state.
efrem1 9 months ago
Hey Tom. Towards the end of your video you said "alleged war on drugs". Do you mean that the war has failed or that the government is pretending to go to war on drugs?
yuppyguitar1 9 months ago
@yuppyguitar1 It was a poor choice of words on my part. I was thinking of the government's repeated use of "war" to describe some futile bureaucratic crusade.
TomWoodsTV 9 months ago
@yuppyguitar1 a little of both is true
Mattboy2388 9 months ago
Shared on facebook with all my conservative Christian family and friends. They all think I went hippie. Can't wait to talk to you tomorrow night in the NYC Libertyfest chat room.
kingcherub 9 months ago
Well said.
anyusmoon1 9 months ago
Current comparisons can be made to those during prohibition. Gangs, organized crime, corruption, payoffs of politicians, etc. Alcohol is now readily available to those who must have it and at a more affordable price and high quality yet not everyone uses and abuses it. If alcohol was not taxed it would be even cheaper and the BATF would become the BTF. Free people should be allowed to make stupid decisions as they will regardless of what is legal and illegal. It will still be OK to say no!
nalejbank 9 months ago
Tom, you should post a video every week.
wood9670 9 months ago 39
Did you say we need to CRACK through the war on drugs?
That's probable cause right there, sir. I'm going to have to ask you to step over here and put your hands on the patrol car. You don't have anything dangerous on you, do you? Weapons? Drug paraphernalia?
jokertim777 9 months ago
America: We only have 5% of the world's population, but we have 25% of the world's prisoners!
Hackiesacker007 9 months ago
I spy with my little eye "Meltdown" and "The Fatal Conceit" in the bottom right.
Goodatconnect4 9 months ago
Comment removed
tewj57 9 months ago
@Goodatconnect4 Close! It's Meltdown and Thaddeus Russell's A Renegade History of the United States.
TomWoodsTV 9 months ago
@TomWoodsTV Hmm.. thought I saw the pink and blue on the spine. Oh well. I'll look up Thaddeus Russell on Amazon.
Anyway, I've always seen myself favoring legalizing drugs due to the logic that follows tolerating the government to regulate what people are allowed to consume. However, the one thing that has always caused an internal rebuttal is China's unfortunate episode with Opium. What is the assurance that Americans will still remain productive after legalizing all currently illegal drugs?
Goodatconnect4 9 months ago
@Goodatconnect4 I don't see productivity levels as the question we should be asking. The important question should be, how can we best respect the rights of human beings?
yuppyguitar1 9 months ago
You & I both seem to be in accord that it is a natural right for one to do with his body as he pleases (or she). It seems the reason why drugs are illegal has to do with the destructive effects they have on large groups of individuals (eg China's Opium) more so than any deliberate attempt to deny natural rights (At least, I hope). Worded differently,
"What assurance is there that American society (I hate that word) will be remain in place if illicit drugs are legalized?"
Goodatconnect4 9 months ago
@Goodatconnect4 Again, if the goal is respecting human rights, then the goal should not be society building at the expense of freedom.
Also I think providing safety as the reason for banning drugs is just a smokescreen for the corporate interests that would be hurt by legalization of marijuana. Look no further than alcohol for the contradiction.
yuppyguitar1 9 months ago
Freedom must be breached to a certain extent if we are to live peacefully. Would you say that I should be free to steal? We have laws that prohibit me from doing so. My freedom has been limited, in order to preserve "society," as done for centuries.
I'm familiar with the story explaining why hemp and marijuana are illegal, but I don't think it's unnatural for governments to feel that they should protect people from foreign substances; the government is looking at it from a different angle.
Goodatconnect4 9 months ago
@Goodatconnect4 There's no consistency in the government's approach drugs. More dangerous and non-beneficial drugs like alcohol are legal while beneficial such ones such a marijuana are illegal. Furthermore if you're big pharma its ok to sell drugs that cause heartattacks, cancer, etc, as long as uncle sam can get tax revenue out of it. Totally inconsistent and they should stay out of it.
I don't believe freedom has to be breached. Naturally, we are not free to violate others' freedom.
yuppyguitar1 9 months ago
History is filled with brutal savages, nations, and groups that were not principled enough to respect the freedom of others; do you advocate anarchy regardless?
Goodatconnect4 9 months ago
@Goodatconnect4 I agree, in fact, in using the word state, by default freedom is being abridged in some way. A state isn't the only solution to defense.
Anarchy then be the lack of state, but this doesn't imply lack of organized society capable of defending itself from other nations. Actually, in an anarchistic society that values freedom above all else, I'd think that defense would be a top priority.
yuppyguitar1 9 months ago
As soon as political organization is established, there is a state by definition. Anarchy is not organization, but maybe voluntary conditions; in which case, there is no guarantee that one will defend another. Locke said that this is pretty much how political states were formed in the very beginning. The word society is a VERY subjective term left to a variety of implications (anywhere from a band of people to an entire nation) and I try to avoid using it. I don't see anarchy as plausible.
Goodatconnect4 9 months ago
@Goodatconnect4 As is the word state, as you've demonstrated. :)
State to me means coercion, what it doesn't mean is voluntary associations or actions, we have different words for that, which I've used. History has pretty well demonstrated numerous instances of how states evolve and what the end game is for the subjects of such states.
So instead of voluntary defenders, you'd prefer the soviet way, where we march them into battle with guns pointed behind them, lest they decide to surrender.
yuppyguitar1 9 months ago
I'm not a totalitarian. If you mean to say that I prefer a draft, you're incorrect. If you mean by "voluntary defenders" in anarchy, those who give their word to defend and it is not enforced by contract, then that is what I oppose. What I meant is that there cannot be political organization (a state) in anarchy as it is a contradiction of terms. State may be subjective, but I use it here to suggest any of a multitude of means of political organization, as is the standard definition.
Goodatconnect4 9 months ago
@Goodatconnect4 Its only contradictory in the way you define anarchy. But if you look at how I've defined it, there is not. You could try to say encouraged voluntarism is political organisation and therefore a state, but it is not, because there is no coercion involved. That's the distinction. Political organization doesn't imply a state when it is voluntary. People have freedom to opt out if they wish. Also I don't know what "standard" definition of state you're talking about.
yuppyguitar1 9 months ago
Standard, meaning from a dictionary (Webster's Online). I've defined anarchy in how it has always been defined: "the absence of law/government." If there is political organization, that has a capability to make laws, then there cannot be anarchy; in that case, there has to be a state. I can voluntarily join the Democratic or Republican party at anytime, I'm just trying to voluntarily get involved in the decisions of the state. People are allowed to leave a state whenever they wish as well.
Goodatconnect4 9 months ago
@Goodatconnect4 Uh, no, Again, you can have political organization without the coercion of law. Again, the key word is "voluntary". And also no, you cannot voluntarily decide not to participate in United States, unless prison is your idea of freedom. When I was born, I don't remember volunteering to sign a contract to pay taxes or to be subjected to any of the other whims of the power-hungry.
yuppyguitar1 9 months ago
What would this political organization do? I can leave the US whenever I want to (emigration). Taxes, as much as they suck, are necessary to pay the military, to make/enforce laws, and provide other services that promote the "general welfare" of all of us.
Goodatconnect4 9 months ago
@Goodatconnect4 Yes, you can abandon your home, family, job, etc, if you disagree with any mandate. That doesn't sound voluntary at all. Thats sort of like being born in an estate inherited from your father, then one day a man comes and says, you must give me 50% of your possessions/wealth "voluntarily". If you refuse, I'll imprison you, but I'll allow you the option of selling the estate and moving.
Taxes are only necessary when you believe coercion is the solution to social problems.
yuppyguitar1 9 months ago
Every action performed by an individual is voluntary, by definition, and every action yields consequences (cause and effect). "50%.." that scenario is a straw-man. Define "social problems." I'm not advocating that taxes pay for "social problems," that's another straw-man.
What of my question about political organizations?
Goodatconnect4 9 months ago
@Goodatconnect4 Surely you're able to realize that words have several meanings, and since you're so fond of dictionary definitions, here's voluntary: 6. law a. acting or done without legal obligation, compulsion, or persuasion
Remember, context is important.
You said that taxes are necessary to pay for military. So if defense according to you is not a problem to be solved, what exactly have I misrepresented here?
Also, governments do not collect 50% in taxes by force?
yuppyguitar1 9 months ago
The assumption you have is that it will be done, when the definition says that it doesn't have to be done. When I choose to act, I do so with an incentive. If someone says "pay tax" I have an incentive for each choice. Voluntary or not, all actions have consequences.
When did I ever say that defense is not a problem to be solved? Define "social problem."
Stop with the 50%, it's dishonest. You've exaggerated my position, to what I never advocated, to refute my point= straw man.
Goodatconnect4 9 months ago
@Goodatconnect4 Not in the slightest. If you're compelled by law to do something, it isn't voluntary, and that's the point that makes democracy tyranny. You're the kind of pedantic person that would say the slaves worked on a voluntary basis. You'd make Harry Reid here proud: watch?v=R7mRSI8yWwg
Change the 50% to 1%, its still arbitrary when you completely miss the point.
First you said we need taxes for a military, then you said " I'm not advocating that taxes pay for "social problems""
yuppyguitar1 9 months ago
You've yet to define "social problems." Is access to adequate healthcare a social problem? I don't think taxes should pay for that. I'm not advocating specific quantities of taxes, stop bringing it up. I never said that all actions are all totally voluntary, but the individual has to have some interest or end in mind in order to act or else it wouldn't be done. Of course, these actions are influenced by conditions.
If you continue to straw man and ad hominem, I'm going to stop responding.
Goodatconnect4 9 months ago
@Goodatconnect4 Social problems are for you to define. Its just a term I used to label the things you think people should be coerced into paying for, like military. So it is up to you to define those things. As I don't believe there are things that need solving by coercion, there is nothing for me to define.
Thats quite a back step on your meaning of voluntary. The new definition is basically meaningless. My argument is still coercion vs voluntary action. We shouldn't be forcing people to act.
yuppyguitar1 9 months ago
I never intentionally used the term "social problems" except for referring to your original usage and have no use for it (agree to drop it?). I've meant voluntary in that sense from the beginning, except for when questioning your use of it to better understand your position. Coercion is necessary (it's one of the reasons why this world has 6.9 billion people instead of a few million) in order to preserve what Hayek called the extended order. I'll certainly agree that there's a limit though.
Goodatconnect4 9 months ago
@Goodatconnect4 Why necessary? And you say that like having millions would be worse than having billions. I'm not convinced we need billions of humans on the Earth, but still confused on why population growth has anything to do with state force. If anything states are trending toward population reduction these days.
yuppyguitar1 9 months ago
Have you read The Fatal Conceit? It's a great book that goes into the rise of modern civilization and contains information on why capitalism, in tune with modest government, has sustained the world more than any other system. I cite the number of people to show how the standard of living has risen to such a level that the world can support so much people. Certainly, governments are not THE reason for prosperity, but over time, they have contributed to the rise in prosperity through capitalism.
Goodatconnect4 9 months ago
@Goodatconnect4 Conjecture. However, what we do have proof of is the massive murder, starvation, and usurpation of human rights, and general human suffering/misery that states have directly caused.
yuppyguitar1 9 months ago
It's not conjecture. Traditions formed by groups, reflected by governments, have led to growth of some groups & the demise of others. For instance, Hayek cites the institution of private property rights protected by government in order to bolster the evolution of trade and the market economy. He argues against 'planned evolution.' He doesn't praise law, in and of itself, but the evolution of law and uses this to show that cultural evolution wasn't planned but rose from "guess and check" methods.
Goodatconnect4 9 months ago
@Goodatconnect4
How in the blue hell can you still maintain that government, which only TAKES money out of the market and recirculate it (after sticking a percentage into its own pocket as "salaries"), is even partially responsible for prosperity? That's like saying that the mafia is wrong, but a thief (robber in modesty) is helping the economy grow. Ever heard of the broken window fallacy? There can be no increase in prosperity from FORCE.
tridentmovies 8 months ago
Read Hayek's "The Fatal Conceit." I was not talking about the government in the manner of stimulus or projects which Bastiat obliterated in the nineteenth century by taking the example of James B. I was talking about how the government keeps traditions, initially formed by people, in place through law and that it is these traditions that lead to the rise of some civilizations and the decline of others. For instance, the Soviet Union didn't even last 80 years for obvious reasons.
Goodatconnect4 8 months ago
@Goodatconnect4
"Productive" towards ends chosen by whom?
Find an answer to this question that is consistent with Libertarianism, such as through an appeal to Misesian social order, and your question will be revealed as being inherently nonsensical. : )
PanzerDivisionBOM 5 months ago
I get it.
Goodatconnect4 5 months ago
@TomWoodsTV I was thinking of actually purchasing the renegade history... What is your opinion of the book? Is it accurate and readable?
christo930 9 months ago
There is no "war on drugs." There is a war on poor people who use drugs, and more to the point, it is a war on poor people of color who use drugs.
rctube1958 9 months ago 21
@rctube1958
why would some one want to get poor black people, where is the motive, maybe they actually think there helping and preventing more drug abuse.
OnlyTheWeakNeedHelp 9 months ago
Well done!
Nielsio 9 months ago
TOM WOODS DOES METH!
Apptendo 9 months ago