Drug Policy

Newt Gingrich Says Drug Use Is "Antithetical to Being an American," Wants to Escalate Drug War by Impoverishing More Users


Fuck prison, I'm a party rapper; that's who I am

"My general belief is that we ought to be much more aggressive about drug policy," GOP presidential candidate Newt Gingrich tells Yahoo! News' Chris Moody. "In my mind it means having steeper economic penalties and it means having a willingness to do more drug testing." The latter applies almost exclusively to poors, naturally. More from that interview:  

In 1996, you introduced a bill that would have given the death penalty to drug smugglers. Do you still stand by that?

I think if you are, for example, the leader of a cartel, sure. Look at the level of violence and the level of violence that they've done to society.  . . . You can either be in the Ron Paul tradition and say there's nothing wrong with heroine and cocaine or you can be in the tradition that says, These kind of addictive drugs are terrible, they deprive you of full citizenship and they lead you to a dependency which is antithetical to being an American. If you're serious about the latter view, then we need to think through a strategy that makes it radically less likely that we're going to have drugs in this country.

Places like Singapore have been the most successful at doing that. They've been very draconian. And they have communicated with great intention that they intend to stop drugs from coming into their country.

In 1981, you introduced a bill that would allow marijuanto be used for medical purposes. What has changed?

What has changed was the number of parents I met with who said they did not want their children to get the signal from the government that it was acceptable behavior and that they were prepared to say as a matter of value that it was better to send a clear signal on no drug use at the risk of inconveniencing some people–then it was to be compassionate toward a small group at the risk of telling a much larger group that it was okay to use the drug.

It's a change of information. Within a year of my original support of that bill I withdrew it.

Ron Paul and Barney Frank have introduced a similar bill almost every year since.

You have to admit, Ron Paul has a coherent position. It's not mine, but it's internally logical.

Speaking of Ron Paul, at the last debate, he said that the war on drugs has been an utter failure. We've spent billions of dollars since President Nixon and we still have rising levels of drug use. Should we continue down the same path given the amount of money we've spent? How can we reform our approach?

I think that we need to consider taking more explicit steps to make it expensive to be a drug user. It could be through [drug] testing before you got any kind of federal aid. Unemployment compensation, food stamps, you name it.

It has always struck me that if you're serious about trying to stop drug use, then you need to find a way to have a fairly easy approach to it and you need to find a way to be pretty aggressive about insisting–I don't think actually locking up users is a very good thing. I think finding ways to sanction them and to give them medical help and to get them to detox is a more logical long term policy.

. . . Sometime in the next year we'll have a comprehensive proposal on drugs and it will be designed to say that we want to minimize drug use in America and we're very serious about it.

Further proof that the smartest man in the GOP actually loves "rightwing social engineering"; is a nitwit. Further reading: Why modeling U.S. drug laws on those in Singapore is tantamount to modeling U.S. Internet laws on those in China (which, yay!, we're actually doing right now); Reason's Gingrich 2012 profile

NEXT: Ron Paul's Moment

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. Antithetical to being an American? Doesn’t Newt know that all our founding fathers, astronauts, and World Series heroes have been either drunk or on cocaine?

    1. I’m sure Newt was too busy doing cocaine at the time to notice those parts of history.

    2. No. Way.

      Soon you’ll be telling me the Founding Fathers grew weed!

      1. Um, they actually did. They called it indian hemp. But you knew this already. :o)

        1. just don’t want to hear the truth because it contradicts with your belief structure. don’t worry no body is forcing anything in your hand.

        2. Broken sarcasm detector is broken.

    3. ….they deprive you of full citizenship…

      That phrase was the scariest. He wants to impose evermore draconian punishments to make you a good American. Because you didn’t realize that living your life as you see fit was depriving yourself of this thing called “full citizenship”.

      1. I agree that is very scary. Who is he to decide whether someone is a “full” citizen or not? Would Newt consider great artists and musicians like Charlie Parker and John Coltrane somehow less than “full citizens” because they happened to struggle with drug addiction?

      2. But…but drug dependency keeps one from living up to one’s full potential as a citizen of our great country! And The State has a vested interest in everyone developing his full potential – because you see, dear reader, The State considers everyone to be property to be developed and harvested.

    4. Not to mention the last 3 presidents are ADMITTED pot smokers.

      Gingrich is an epic douche.

      1. This.

        With emphasis on “epic” and “douche”.

      2. A Grand Intergalactic Douche, even.

        1. Grand Master Douche, with little douche reasons

  2. I’ve tried to think of a funny response,but,drug warriors are just not funny,or intelligent.Anyone who believes they can contol non violent hunman behavior,be it drinking,smoking,snorting,or eating is a fool.

    1. …and a tyrant.

  3. Gingrich is a stupid and energetic person.

    If Republican party members pick him as their nominee they deserve the Schroedinger’s disaster the election will cause.

    1. Well put tarran.

    2. From Clausewitz’s analysis of officers, a stupid and energetic person is the only kind who has no legitimate role, and can only cause damage.

      Smart and lazy: should be in charge.

      Smart and energetic: staff officer/middle management.

      Stupid and lazy: always a place for them: somebody has to guard the motor pool.

      Stupid and energetic: a disaster in the making.

      1. Smart and lazy: should be in charge.

        Who knew I had leadership potential?

      2. That reminds me of a similar four-pronged matrix that describes workers

        Consciously Competent — Good at what they do and are confident in their abilities.

        Consciously Incompetent — they suck and they know it

        Unconsciously Competent (low self confidence but can actually do the job)

        Unconsciously Incompetent (arrogant and confident but actually sucks at their job).

        Newt is definitely the 4th category.

    3. But what about the likes of us who DON’T vote for a douche like Gingrich?

  4. Well, so much for Newt as my “goto guy of the week”.

    He’s as fluid as Romney, and much more long-winded.

  5. Although I share many of Newt’s views regarding drug abuse, I’m a bit of a cynic; I doubt that we will ever be able to put that particular toothpaste back in the tube.

    1. many of the abuses of drugs are specifically related to the nature of the drug war.

      Caffiene’s a fucking drug.

      1. Pretty much the worst thing about using drugs is that the government will ruin your life if they catch you. Fuck Newcular sideways with a lunchbox.

        1. Won’t you please consider the poor lunchbox’s feelings?

    2. I’d be willing to bet Newt would fail a drug test for weed and/or opiates. As one of the ruling class, it’s his right & privilege to use whatever substances he wants. Prohibition is for the little people.

      1. probably not weed, but I swear congress is divided between those who do uppers and those who do downers.

        1. What about those who speedball?

          1. Obviously Biden is in a world of his own.

          2. Daggone it!

            (what does it say about us that we both thought of that, though?)

        2. Speedballs, maybe? He sometimes looks like he has a bad case of the coke bloat. Although, since he’s from Georgia, maybe it’s just Coke bloat.

  6. If the GOP nominates this asshole, the libertarian block is lost to them.

    1. TEAM RED is on very thin ice, and will most likely lose both the libertarian and the budget-utilitarian factions (maybe 1/4 to 1/2 of the tea party, that really is concerned about spending, and not ramming their dumbass dominionist views down everybodys throats). Servicing “national security” fuckfaces and pandering so-con assbreaths remain the number one priorities for the Republican Party.

      Libertarians account for at least 5% of the R coalition, while the budget-utilitarians are at least 10% of the R electorate. Republican party cannot win without these two groups.

  7. Since my Ma came down with teh cancer, I have learned even more about the War on Drugs. My Ma was prescribed THC pills (aka Marinol) for her nausea and lack of appetite. The fact that these pills exist is yet more evidence that the war on weed is nothing more than control. If the plant that produces THC were made legal, why, anyone could get it and use it! That just won’t do! The only acceptable use is a pill made from highly concentrated (and artificially manufactured?) THC, which is approved and regulated by good ol Uncle Sam.

    1. …and lacks many of the cannibinoids in the plant. Synth THC has a repuation for getting the users higher than they want (since they’re usually medical users) without providing as many benefits that they need (especially anti-emetic properties).

    2. Plus, giving people pills that take like an hour to take effect for nausea seems a little silly.

      1. I always threw up the very expensive pills before they were able to take effect. If you can get it without someone like Newt Gingrich destroying your life, tell your mom to use the real stuff with a vaporizer. Better dosage control, and if you can get high quality sativa, you get the anti-emetic and pain killing properties without much of a buzz.

        1. Did you try holding them under your tongue?

        2. Or inserting them rectally?

  8. What an asshole!

    1. A psychopathic authoritarian asshole!

  9. Money is Newt’s drug of choice. It is extremely obvious that he is an addict.

    1. I would say that attention is his primary drug.

    2. Power junkie. And Grand Intergalactic Douche.

  10. Another reason to not support Newt. He wants to give a failed policy more money? Our money at that! Newt is a scary crackpot and hates individual freedom and Liberty.

    1. I need another reason not to support Newt about as much as I need another reason not to eat shit.

      1. +44DD Newcular Titties

    2. Hey, you spell your name right. Wait. I mean you spell my name right. I spell your… and I agree with you (me) about Newt. Dangerous fathead. The kind of near-smart kid I used to intimidate in school. “OK, smart guy, onomatopeoia, quick, spell and define. C’mon, Newt! You’re SLOW! Okay, then, four more English words with four consecutive vowels. Three, then! Two? COME ON, slowpoke! God, you f’ing idiot.”

      1. Anyone catch the intentional typo? Win a Newt doll!

  11. Until and unless you {who sounds like a user-transparent} can come up with a more effective way to cut back on drug dealer profits maybe you should keep your opinion to yourself.Maybe the “POOR” should not be “using” – it WOULD save them the expense.? Social Engineering is what these drug dealers are already doing …to the detriment of our country….

      1. And “DUKE” like Uncle Duke, right? Priceless.

    1. so why are all the native american drugs illegal ?

        1. not yet a drug. it trys moar harder…

    2. you talking to Newt?

    3. …can come up with a more effective way to cut back on drug dealer profits

      The illegality of some drugs means that dealers make far more than they would if the drugs were legal. Al Capone didn’t get rich selling legal booze.

    4. Who are you addressing here?

      There is exactly one effective way to cut back drug dealer profits.

    5. It’s called legalization. Things get more expensive when they’re only available through the black market. This is sometimes known as supply and demand. Drug dealers are pure capitalists; increase available supply and drop the price, then cut back on profits while enforcing penalties for DUI, DWI, murder, etc. God forbid we enforce the laws we already have.

  12. I’d rather have W back for term three than asshole Gingrich.

    1. “I’d rather have W back for term three”

      Isn’t that what we have now?

      1. Was going to say, Obama re-election is an equivalent option.

  13. “You can either be in the Ron Paul tradition and say there’s nothing wrong with heroine and cocaine…..”

    Citation please. I don’t think Newt can find any situation where Paul says “there’s nothing wrong with heroine and cocaine”.

    “It could be through [drug] testing before you got any kind of federal aid. Unemployment compensation, food stamps, you name it.”

    If Newt’s last sentence was “Unemployment compensation, food stamps, PAYING TAXES IN THE FIRST PLACE, you name it.” I would be in favor of his position.

    1. that was such a blatant smear.

      How about adultery Newt? That is very damaging to society, maybe we should make that illegal too! Oh wait, you’d be the first person hauled off to the slammer if that ever happened!

  14. Jesus Horsegobbling Christ.

    What a despicable shitbag.

      1. Oh, wait. He’s not a fabulous lady. Never mind.

  15. Barry’s drug policy isn’t much better than Newt’s.

    1. Barry’s drug policy isn’t much better than Newt’s.

      is that Newt’s next campaign commercial?

  16. Places like Singapore have been the most successful at doing that. They’ve been very draconian.

    He says that in a complimentary way. Terrifying.

    1. The Singapore analogy is beyond dumb. Singapore is barely larger than most US individual cities. What works for them isn’t necessarily going to work for each and every municipality of a huge nation like the US. We’re talking about federal laws being imposed on states and overriding freedoms that the states are trying to guarantee.

      1. I’m sure Newt will bring up Singapore at an upcoming debate. Ron should counter by citing Portugal, and by pointing out the absurdity of trying to impose the laws of a tiny, one-city nation on a huge country like the US, and that he’d have few objections to individual cities in the US trying the Singapore model, but the Feds don’t need to get involved.

      2. The Singapore analogy basically says, in the right circumstance of geography, tyranny works. Arguing that it won’t work in the US’s wider geography isn’t a principled argument. It’s saying that if it could work here, that would be OK.

        1. I do agree that tyranny at all levels is bad.

          But under Dr. Paul’s federalist position, local jurisdictions have the authority to regulate substance abuse like they already do with alcohol and cigs. Some cities and states have smoking bans, but at least it’s not a federal law.

          I definitely believe the Portugal solution is the right one. But to win over conservatives Paul should definitely invoke the federalist principle of states rights and local municipalities being able to choose what is best for them.

        2. Remember, Paul is trying to win over a lot of people with preconceived prejudices in favor of draconian drug laws. Before getting into the merits of legalization vs criminalization, all he has to do to shoot down Gingerich is point out how laughably stupid his analogy is.

          1. Part of Paul’s arguments have always hinged on the moral pragmatic “totalitarianism is expensive” point of view. Of course the moral issues and first principles are indispensible but in the course of a campaign it would be wise to point out that Singapore’s borders are way easier and cheaper to police for drugs than America’s thousands of miles of borders with Mexico and Canada.

    2. Places like Singapore have been the most successful at doing that. They’ve been very draconian.

      He says that in a complimentary way. Terrifying.

      Why should he be scared?

      He’s confident that it will never be applied to him or his.

  17. I never thought I would ever see a candidate that made Obama look appealing in comparison. No wonder Bill Clinton is saying nice things about Newt.

  18. I heartily support needing to pass a drug test before I pay taxes.

  19. I can just hear these words coming out of Newt’s bloated head and it makes me want to scrub my brain with a Brillo.

    Or get high.

  20. it was better to send a clear signal on no drug use at the risk of inconveniencing some people–then it was to be compassionate toward a small group at the risk of telling a much larger group that it was okay to use the drug.

    Pure unadulterated evil.

    1. Former NFL player sentenced to a six year inconvenience

      Brings a tear to my eye, to see such compassion in exchange for a little inconvenience.

      1. I’m a Packer fan, and you wouldn’t believe the stupid that showed up on a lot of the Packer fora I visit.

        When I suggested that nobody should go away for six years for consensual activities, the response too often was, “But Jolly had enough codeine to be dealing!” As if the people who would have bought it would not have been doing so consensually.

        Others appealed to authority, saying that Jolly deserves to spend six years in jail for what amounts to contempt of court: he disobeyed a judge’s orders. You should have seen the reactions when I suggested that perhaps the laws Jolly stands convicted of violating are morally wicked. (I literally used the word “wicked” in my comments, I was that pissed off.)

        1. I didn’t go to any Packer sites but the espn.com comments were split evenly between 1) no one should go to jail for this, 2) drugs are bad mkay, and 3) he’s an idiot for getting caught or for violating probation or not spending his money wisely, etc so maybe he’ll think about THAT for 6 years…dummy.

  21. “better to send a clear signal on no drug use at the risk of inconveniencing some people”

    I’m at least glad he states the issue correctly, rather than pretending that there’s no medical benefit. Of course, the term “inconvenience” is an understatement.

  22. While I’m opposed to pretty much everything the Newtster says, I really don’t have a problem with people having to take a drug test to get govt. assistance. Although I must admit, I would’ve had a hard time getting those federally backed student loans that helped me get a job teaching English in Mexico for 4 dollars an hour.

    1. On the tax payers dime? No thank you. Florida already showed us how much of a waste that idea was. $198m down the drain to show us 4% actually used. No need to throw the baby out with the bath water.

    2. Not only is it cheaper to avoid the tests, but instituting them makes the drug war even more deeply entrenched in people’s minds. I’d rather put up with a few potheads on welfare.

    3. While I’m opposed to pretty much everything the Newtster says, I really don’t have a problem with people having to take a drug test to get govt. assistance.

      Does that include Medicare and SocSec?

      If not, piss off.

      1. Actually, that’s genius. I bet we could cut the cost of Medicare and SS in half by instituting drug testing. Why should taxpayers pay for health care for junkie grandpas?

        1. I’d rather let junkie grandpa get his fix than watch him bankrupt the system.

        2. Why should taxpayers pay for health care for junkie grandpas porn addicts compulsive gamblers brown people financially incompetent

    4. Frankly if someone is receiving benefits from the government that they’re taxed to pay for, it’s not the government’s business whether they use drugs. Even if most welfare recipients don’t pay income tax, they do pay sales taxes an other random federal and state fees, plus they’ve probably paid a fine or two at some point. It’s bad enough that the government taxes people to pay for welfare — it’s even worse when the government discriminates against a certain part of the population for those benefits.

  23. Or… you could just end prohibition…
    just sayin’…

  24. The next few debates are going to be an all out war between Ron and Newt. They’ll be fighting for pole position in Iowa. I can’t wait to see Ron take on Newt next month.

  25. Gingerich is such a pretentious poser. He’s like a guy who thinks he’s into classical music because he listens to Rick Wakeman’s “The Six Wives of Henry VIII” and Dream Theater.

  26. …or like a dude who says he’s “into jazz” but has a Kenny G poster on his office wall.

  27. I’m sure Newt thought he was super-clever by his retort on McVeigh. But he completely missed the point. Conspiracy to commit murder or terrorism also happens to be a crime, and there are laws already on the books that enable law enforcement to do their jobs to prevent crime. Ron Paul was essentially arguing that we should let the criminal justice system handle terrorism just like it handles other crimes. Newt is essentially arguing that only Big Brother can stop terror. It’s stupid — terrorism is nothing new, it has always existed and will always continue to exist. Somehow, most civilized societies have been able to cope with it for 5000 years without feeling the need to completely strip away civil liberties.

    1. Somehow, most civilized societies have been able to cope with it for 5000 years without feeling the need to completely strip away civil liberties.

      Well most civilized societies never recognized any civil liberties in the first place.

      1. Without civil liberties, I won’t call them civilized.

  28. In 1981, you introduced a bill that would allow marijuana to be used for medical purposes. What has changed?

    What has changed was the number of parents I met with who said they did not want their children to get the signal from the government that it was acceptable behavior and that they were prepared to say as a matter of value that it was better to send a clear signal on no drug use at the risk of inconveniencing some people–then it was to be compassionate toward a small group at the risk of telling a much larger group that it was okay to use the drug.

    So, taking medicine when you’re ill “sends the wrong message” to children? So I suppose we should stop giving painkillers to people who have major surgery; just let them tough it out to “send the right message”.

    What an ignorant fuckstick.

    1. Entirely apart from the medicinal aspect, what if the government sent a signal that certain decisions are up to the individual, as well as the consequences of those decisions. That parents need not abdicate their responsibility to the government. My folks made it clear that what’s legal and what’s right are not the same thing.

    2. So I suppose we should stop giving painkillers to people who have major surgery

      We are approaching that point, thanks.

      1. i say take the cialis and viagra from them and see how much smilin theyll do. just because they cant tax a drug doesnt mean it should be banned

  29. Speaking like a true NAZIS

  30. You’ll note from that picture that Newt has very *small hands*. I’ll let you draw your own conclusions.

    1. That is what was Dante Culpepper’s problem, small hands. He kept fumbling.

  31. Death penalty for drug cartel?
    End  prohibition. 
    That will decapitate them and enable entrepreneurial minded Americans to capitalize profits vs. mass murdering scumbags gathering all proceeds.  

  32. I think we should spare Newt the inconvenience of any further elected office.

    1. I kind of get the feeling he’s scared shitless that he’ll actually win the nomination instead of just milking his candidacy for money and attention.

  33. Yes, what we really need is to be more like Singapore. Having lived there I can tell you that even as a preteen I could see that drug use (and therefore dealing) existed. Any statistics saying otherwise from the Singaporean press (government controlled) is a bunch of bullshit.

    Are we going to hang them? Should we cane people for talking about the government outside of the “speaker’s corner?” How about having a one party government and financially ruining opposition party candidates with rigged libel/slander suits?

    Jesus fucking Christ

    1. How about having a one party government and financially ruining opposition party candidates with rigged libel/slander suits?

      We essentially already have a one party government.

  34. Great, so because a bunch of parents have no clue how to raise their shitty kids and assume they won’t be able to discern medical uses or marijuana, Newt stopped supporting it.


  35. Expressing admiration for Singapore’s government is a per se disqualification, as far as I’m concerned.

    Not that I was planning to vote for Newt, anyway.

  36. Conventional insults are not enough to describe this guy. I’m afraid brand new ones are the only ones that will suffice.

    You don’t get much more “big government” than Newt Gingrich.

  37. Newt Gingrich is a socialist.

    1. Newt Gingrich is retarded and should be in a helmet and on a leash when out in public.

  38. If Newt throws in tobacco, sugar, caffeine, and alcohol then he would make a reasonable point. But since he’s a hypocrite, there is no point here.

  39. You have to admit, Ron Paul has a coherent position. It’s not mine, but it’s internally logical.

    Well at least he admits his position’s incoherent and illogical

    1. i bet if i dropped a billion dollars into his campaign, he’d swear by eating unborn fetus’s and humping apple pies. probably blaze an acre of weed with me. i’d bet a years worth of paychecks

  40. Ugh, he’s really making me reconsider my position that I would vote for whoever the GOP nominates just to beat BO.

  41. How Newt Gingrich Abetted the Theft of Average Joe’s Home

    The Real Newt Gingrich

  42. Ron Paul 2012.
    End the war on drugs.
    Let states decide their drug use laws.
    End the war on the people.

  43. I can’t understand why Reason is so ignorant of the actual science, of the problems with the IPCC, and of the level of corruption in the climate field.

  44. wow he has to be one stupid arrogant asshole to not want to legalize cannabis. RON PAUL 2012

  45. these kind of close minded, arrogant SOBs will never get elected into the white house. small group? has he ANY idea? he must have forgotten the forefathers and their pot fields and consumption of opiates and cocaine….we were founded on doing the oppisite of what we are told.

  46. How convenient that Congress passed a law with no input from the American people that protects them from having to take a drug test!

  47. WOW anti-american dude needs to lay off the sauce, the drug war is anti-american & the war on cannabis is past anti-american as our founding fathers grew hemp & eat grull(I personally assumed they smoked it, I mean if your growing it you would find that out, but Ive never seen it officially anywhere just rumors) but not only that its illogical based on scare tactics & bs science, I have no words man

  48. Who’s payroll is he on again?

  49. Who’s payroll is he on again?

  50. This guy is a nazi

  51. This guy is a nazi

  52. People like him are what make me ashamed to be an american. i hope one day our leaders don’t have their heads up their asses

  53. You know the real reason ole Newt’s become such an anti-drug hardliner? He doesn’t want medical marijuana going to his current wife if she gets cancer. He just loves to sue for divorce when his wives are sick in bed unable to fight back. Out of all the GOP candidates, I find him to be the most detestible pussy of them all.

  54. Newt is a tool, and he just lost any chance of my support should he win the nomination. Thanks Reason for bringing this to my attention.

  55. And yet, Ron Paul is an unelectable whacko. People who support Gingrich are sensible since he is a serious candidate, but Ron Paul – who opposes the drug war and the Patriot Act and on and on with respect to liberty – people who support him are Paultards ’cause Ron Paul doesn’t share entirely “with it” views on abortion.

  56. The altruistic behaviors need to be in full support of society, not government. We have the right to full autonomy, however categorizing ethical behavior based the views of government is a form of social control.
    Don’t want it, don’t use. That simple. Don’t stereotype a class, by giving it a label so that it can be further discriminated against. Jail hasn’t worked so now economic sanctions? Enough!
    The United States drug policy has been and will continue to be the biggest failure, so long as we rely on government to control individuals. What works is better drug education (the truth), Parents involvement, and an open communication. This combination actively provides a social structure and ideology that is organized around individuals functioning in society. Alcohol is still being advertised, tobacco is still legal, given this substance kills more that any one illegal substance combined, today. Yet were bickering about not feeding people, or not allowing them a chance to utilize government programs that these people pay taxes on. Questionable are the ethics behind such proposal.
    Education is people deciding, policy is government control. Would you like to make up your own mind?
    Life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness does not stipulate an American way, just guaranteeing you are provided these inalienable rights. The drug war that has been waged upon Americans contradicts our ideology.

  57. Ron Paul needs to pull this one outta the fire! What a POS Gingrich is….all the Republicans aside from Paul are completely out of touch with what the USA should stand for..FREEDOM. GAWD is the the best we can do?

  58. Grow up Newt!! Your hypocrisy and ignorance are showing. Rx narcotics are the problem. Its common sense and people such as yourself could really do a good thing in stopping addiction,WHICH IS A HEALTHCARE ISSUE, by telling the truth about marijuana for once. Perhaps a little chat with Rush might enlighten you a bit. Look, I was a Rx narcotic addict for 20yrs and @ 44 discovered marijuana, which saved my life and sanity. I never ONCE doubted what you jerks told me from washington d.c.!!!! I paid a very dear price for that. Educate yourself. Do yourself a favor and help the helplessly addicted pill poppers. I intend to stand up for marijuana legalization and tell the truth. For anyone who thinks that big pharma isn’t behind the demonizing of marijuana has their heads in the sand! Its true that money and power corrupt. Look around. But remember, good always overcomes evil. You know, fear as a tactic just has never worked for me. I know my opinion matters. It would be a good idea if Newt got is facts straight before he opened his hypocrital piehole. To quote Dr. Phillip McGraw, “When the judicial system begins to criminalize medicine, it is a slippery slope.” Stupidity does not justify imprisonment. If that were true, Newt, where would you be????

    1. YOU GO SISTER!!!!! AMEN!!

  59. Newt Gingrich has always had a sociopathic side. And it comes out so clearly, especially when he starts feeling confident, cocky, full of himself.

    Gingrich is obviously feeling a bit arrogant these days, rising in the Republican polls—almost by default—as his competitors self-destruct.

    Why any conservative would ever back this man—or even want to be associated with him—is very difficult to understand.

    Gingrich changed his wife 3 times and his religion 3 times. He proudly called himself a “liberal, Rockefeller Republican” in the late 70’s, but changed his tune when he saw things moving in a different direction after 1980.

    He lusts for money. He lusts for power. And he’ll think nothing of destroying millions of lives if it can get him what he wants.

    Gingrich is one sick puppy. I wouldn’t let him near my wallet, nor my family, nor my business. I suspect most Americans feel the same way, despite the relatively small, but fanatical following he bizarrely appears to still have.

  60. Newt Gingrich: Says “Drug Use Is “Antithetical to Being an American,”

    Really? What would the Founding Father’s say about Newt?

    1. “Those who deny freedom to others deserve it not for themselves, and, under a Just God, cannot long retain it.” –Abraham Lincoln, letter to H.L. Pierce, April 6, 1859.

    And who denies freedom to others, and so are Anti American Treasoners, who should NEVER LEAD Free Americans?

    2.The U.S. Declaration of Independence clearly identifies the deniers of freedom:

    “A prince whose character is thus marked by every act which may define a TYRANT, is unfit to be the ruler of a free people.” ?U.S. Declaration of Independence July 4th 1776

    Time to wake up America and use our Reason: the Conservative Newt is a Tyrant unfit to lead free Americans. You remember freedom don’t you? Shut Newt down for the sake of American Freedom.

  61. Newt….still a friggin moron. Study alcohol prohibition….and….more people die every year from gov’t-approved alcohol and nicotine abuse than ALL other drug deaths….10,,000 to 1 ratio??? Newt…the man preaching morals….trying to tell others how to live…hahahaha

  62. I cannot listen to this fascist anymore!!! So the jails are too full and we need space… let’s just kill all the druggies and let the murders due their time in peace. I mean really what’s the difference in getting high on alcohol or weed? This fascist wants to kill me for doing it!!!!!

  63. Moron is the word that came to my mind – I was cleaning out some old files and found a bill submitted by Gingrich in 1990 that would “completely eliminate drug use in America by 1995.” That has to be the pinnacle of delusional thinking. Well, maybe a delusional president is what this country needs! Let him sit there and concoct his lunatic plans, and maybe Congress would rise to the occasion and ignore the crackpot.

  64. The Singapore CNB (Central Narcotic Bureau) announced in September 2011 that the the 5% drop per year, which they often proudly proclaimed as proof of the effectiveness of their tough drug stance, was totally inaccurate. Arrests it seems have actually increased since 2008 contradicting Singapore’s assertion that being tough on drugs (even with mandatory death sentences) has ever been effective.

    From January to June 2011 there was a 20% increase in arrests compared to the previous year. This not only indicates that drugs are entering Singapore but also that the amount of people in Singapore using drugs is steadily and surely increasing.

    This isn’t just a problem Singapore can claim is due to chronic drug users, as a large percentage of those being arrested are first time users — 41% in 2008, 45% in 2009 and 46% in 2010. This clearly shows that threats of caning, harsh prison sentences and even death does nothing to deter either ‘chronic users’ or ‘first time users’.

    The government has promised to “look at the problem afresh and comprehensively”, but they’ve also pledged to maintain Singapore’s ‘zero-tolerance policy’. So no change there then, which is what we’ve come to expect from people who’s livelihood depends on an historically failed and dangerous policy.

    The Singapore government, and those who blindly support them, now have no proof whatsoever that their laws are curtailing drug smuggling or drug usage rates.


    Due to the embarrassment this has caused to the Singapore authorities, the original article from the above link has recently been removed. Kindly google: Central Narcotics Bureau blames under-reporting of statistics on migration to new computer system in 2008

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.