Replies

I view them as a party that wants to get stoned.

I'm a registered Repub; but have Libertarian leanings. I have not, nor have I ever been a drug user.

But let's approach this logically. Has the WoD done anything other than drive the desirability of contraband up, created more addictive drugs, created a highly profitable underground and filled our jails with non-violent offenders?

Prohibition has NEVER worked. In the recorded history of man, I defy you to provide one instance where gov't prohibition of a substance has been effective.

Look what happened when some well-meaning people tried to prohibit alcohol. We inspired gangsters to move beyond gambling and prostitution, we created a market for far more potent drinks (whiskey was disdained as the drink of 'drunks'), we made a low profit commodity a high profit commodity, and how many lives were cut short? Now, you are applying the same mind set to drugs. Simply said, it doesn't work.

There are no indication that prohibition drives the demand up. Places that have legalized have seen an increase in usage.

There were good things that came out of alcohol prohibition. They included admissions to hospitals and mental hospitals dropping dramatically, church attendance reaching all time highs, etc. The period was known as the "roaring 20's" economically.

But the bottom line is, you have to draw a line somewhere. Are you going to let LSD and heroine and other super addicting drugs out on the free market where pushers can get people hooked? No. Most libertarians will admit that you can't let all things out on the market. So now we have a line and the question is where do you draw it. Do you draw it after alcohol but before pot where it is now or do you shift it.

During the Clinton era I spent three years with the Libertarian Party because their simplified Statement of Principles made so much sense:

"We hold that all individuals have the right to excersise sole dominion over their own lives, and have the right to live in whatever manner they choose, so long as they do not forcibly interfere with the equal right of others to live in whatever manner they choose.

I left them quickly after it became apparent liberal Democrats were joining in droves (when the writing was on the wall that the White House was lost).

Prior to that the subjects listed in the article were open to honest discussion and debate. After the scum influx they were verbotten.

I do agree with Hodar that the WOD is a terrible waste of our money that only benefits those who gain riches and careers from it - the entire private prison industry couldn't survive without it. While legalizing all of them is out of the question taking the profit margin out of marijuana would immediately pay off in reduced incarcerations and otherwise salvagable lives. Allowing the provenly harmful substances alcohol and tobacco, albeit controlled, just wreaks of hypocrisy. This is why our kids roll their eyes at us when we lecture them.

Prior to legal efforts to control them drug use had little appeal to the average citizen, affecting far less a percentage than we have now. From Harry Aslinger's time to now, it was always about ego and power rather than the public good. Follow the money.

"But let's approach this logically. Has the WoD done anything other than drive the desirability of contraband up, created more addictive drugs, created a highly profitable underground and filled our jails with non-violent offenders?"

Logically? You're not appealing to logic. You're simply repeating legalization talking points and appealing to emotion.

If all drugs were legal, I could paint a similar scenario. Legalization (with its corresponding advertising) will not drive up desirability? A legal climate for drugs will not bring out America's entrepreneurship in creating new recreational drugs? Oh, and what's so wrong with locking up "non-violent offenders"? What, we should release robbers, burglars, tax cheats, white collar criminals, child pornographers, etc. because their crimes were not violent?

And drug legalization will somehow eliminate the non-violent offenders? I say crimes would increase. I say crimes like theft and prostitution would increase as greater numbers of drug customers attempt to find the money for their next fix. And no, legalization will not reduce prices -- look around in today's world for examples of that.

Government, with their repressive taxation, will drive drugs back underground as they're doing today with cigarette taxes. Plus, the "underground" will now export our legal drugs to countries where those drugs remain illegal, and will sell domestically to teens.

If you do not legalize every drug, including prescription drugs, and make them available over-the-counter, the "underground" will continue to sell those that remain illegal.

Less that 1% of the U.S. population believes, as you do, in the legalization of all drugs. Your fantasy Libertarian world does not, and can never, exist.

defy you to provide one instance where gov't prohibition of a substance has been effective.

Guns . . . .

Well, not exactly! but I made you look. ;-)

My actual point is - when it comes to gun control the anti-libertarians say, "It will never work. Criminals will always have guns"

. But when it comes to drug control (read: WOD) "It's the right thing to do, it will work." Even though they have the example of prohibition at the beginning of the last century.