It's his position against the drug war that makes Ron Paul so volcanically controversial here on DU.

[phleshdef]

46. Yes I know that. Its also not that common.

Usually, you have to drink everyday, for quite a long time, before your body develops that level of dependency and some people drink that way for decades and still quit without experiencing any of that.

Considering the usual length of time abusing alcohol would take before someone becomes that codependent, I see a lot more leeway for being permissive of alcohol than heroine. Heroine can put you into a state of codependence a lot easier and a lot faster. With alcohol, people have plenty of time to realize what they are doing to themselves before its too late. Of course it doesn't always work out that way. But the fact is, the easier it is for a drug to make someone that codependent, the more dangerous that drug is. Also, alcoholics have a higher chance of being able to function during their day to day lives than heroine addicts do. I'm not defending alcohol. My opinion on it is that its fine, if you don't abuse it, and it can be a real problem if you do. But theres no way you can compare the short or long term effects of alcohol to heroine. Comparing tit for tat, heroine is going to come out on top as a bigger threat, big enough that it should remain illegal. And I can name about a half a dozen opiate based pain pills that are legal by prescription that should be under almost as many tight restrictions. They have been handing out oxycontin like candy in Appalachia and its made a desperate situation about a thousand times worse in that area of the country. That is just a preview of what a Ron Paul drug policy would look like on a national scale.