Old hippies and liberals (libertarians).
As I often point out - there is no serious conservative anywhere who endorses legal drugs. This is a leftist issue.
Interestingly enough, it was the Left (then styling themselves as Progressives) that pushed to make many of these substances illegal in the first place, not to mention they were behind the 18th Amendment.
Myself, I’m on the fence regarding legalization of drugs. I regard it as a personal choice, and as such anyone who chooses to use them should be prepared to bear the consequences themselves. That said, given that most of present-day America abhors personal responsibility, legalization is not a good idea at this time.
But I’ll also submit that the main benefit of Prohibition was to bootleggers. Without it, chances are we might not have gotten the Kennedys, as this was where much of Joe Kennedy’s fortune was made.
Agreed
I used to be a supporter of the War, but this conservative has come around on the issue, and I suspect there are others as well. Drugs are bad, but the monster we created to fight them has become worse than the original problem.
Nobody who argues for legalization should ever be taken seriously
If you want prohibition, Amend the Constitution, so that your war on drugs is constitutional, unless, as I suspect, you’re too f’ing lazy, as are most progressives, these days.
Our admitted Choom Gang pres__ent is all in favor of retaining the prohibition. Because of the civil liberties that they get to violate in their never-ending quest to find someone who has ever touched any illegal substances.
Full disclosure: I do not now, nor have I ever, used any illegal substance, unless you count under-age beer drinking.
“As I often point out - there is no serious conservative anywhere who endorses legal drugs. This is a leftist issue.
“
Too clever by half. I don’t endorse GM autos, I do think it should be legal to sell and own them. Trying to frame the discussion so that supporting the legalization of drugs is somehow ENDORSING the use of drugs is just wrong. I also don’t endorse drinking, however I do think it should be legal. Maybe to subtle a point, however I think a very valid point. I guess too libertarian for a “true conservative” who thinks just like a “liberal”. We know best how someone else should live their life and we are ready to send them to jail if they don’t want to live it the way a “true conservative” deems permissible.
People keep forgetting:
GayMuzzie is secret PARTNERS with the Sinaloa Cartel.
Why would he via legalization facilitate the entry into HIS market of enemy COMPETITORS..?
There might once have been SOME kind of drug war, but now that it is simply a way of keeping out competitors —Sinaloa (POTUS) drug loads get into the country UNIMPEDED.
They will not settle for even 4 or 5 cartels, so why would they legalize a vibrant market with LOW PRICES?
Does not compute.
AntiMarketIsts like MONOPOLIES so that prices remain high and they can meet periodically to collect their cut —THAT is the type of business that socialists UNDERSTAND, just like single-payer, or lotteries, etc.
Perhaps the Lefties should think about that.
I'm an old geezer conservative, don't use drugs or pot and won't, but I've always been for the legalization of at least pot.
Maybe the old hippies and liberals will be so stoned they won't get out to vote if pot was legal?
As a conservative, I'm sick and tired of my hard earned money going down a rat hole to investigate, prosecute and jail potheads.
When I was in the USAF in the early '70s there were a large number of potheads, you could get high just walking through the stenching haze in the dorm hallways.
I NEVER saw ANY of those people causing a problem, in fact it mellowed out some who were problem people on alcohol.
A few rare people are supposed to flip out and become paranoid from what I've read. I've never known of one personally yet, so wonder if this is propaganda? The supposed "reefer madness". One argument against it is that pot is supposedly a "gateway drug". Once it's legal, it won't be so much as you'll be buying it at the state booze store rather from someone who may want to sell you something else.
You'll never meet that person.
This should very much be a republican issue. It's about smaller government and freedom.
For the record, I am presently conducting a taste test. I have pretty well determined that Jack Daniels Black label has a superior flavor to Wild Turkey
The Wild Turkey is very smooth but has a stronger alcohol flavor than the Black Jack.
Going on Memory, I think the previously tested George Dickel is superior to the wild Turkey as well although not as smooth
Legal drugs would mean tremendous reduction in deaths, prisoner populations, less urban blight, more tax revenue, and less welfare. But as you say, these only concern leftists so never mind.
The 800 lb gorilla in the room is that some recreational drugs already are legal. People pretend that legalizing pot would open some door that up till now has remained shut.
There’s been inadequate discipline in investigations at local levels for a long time. Not enough patience to bust the secondary and primary dealers. Not even enough discipline for long term stakeouts. Also, the usual, local, yocal “untouchables” (money fronters, all—pillars of the community). Meanwhile, local governments receive big federal funding for more trivial pursuits.
Should the government have the right to tell you what you may or may not consume?
I believe that is a conservative question, not a Libertarian or Leftist one.
Ending the federal drug war will not legalize drugs.
The problem, as always, is that any issue - in this case drugs - is the thin end of the wedge when it comes to greed (REAL greed), abuse of authority, and the government’s insatiable desire for control.
Seizure/confiscation of anything but especially vehicles and cash is rife in every PD and sheriff’s department. Occasionally they will buy something with proceeds from an auction but for the most part the goodies disappear into a black hole with no audits, no accounting and no obvious signs of benefit to the paymasters i.e. taxpayers, especially when the inevitable begging for police levies occurs.
Due process is a long-forgotten concept under these laws (and I use the term loosely) and property seized under paper-thin pretexts is rarely recovered despite the individual being completely innocent - or often mistaken for a suspect/perp.
The drug war has brought us cops dressing in paramilitary/SWAT gear for everyday shifts, armed to the teeth and glowering at all. The drug war has brought us the ludicrous concept and practice of no-knock warrants. The drug war has brought us early release (or mere home confinement) of violent types - rapists, murderers, thugs - to make room for mandatory minimum drug sentences.
In short, the police and the legal system have, as usual, taken their eye off the ball in order to perform a ‘skim’ that would make Meyer Lansky blush with embarrassment.
BUCKLEY: Okay, if I were the drug czar, I would say, “Okay, here are the five or six popular, illegal drugs. You can get them at the federal drug store for just more than the pharmaceutical cost of producing them. Enough to sustain the overhead, but enough also to discourage a black market in them. But before you go in there you’re going to have to read a description of what this drug does to you. And if you’re in a mood to play Russian roulette, go ahead and take some crack cocaine, because the probability that you will be seriously affected by this is up around eight, ten percent.” So therefore I would give them all the warning that they needed about the toxicity that they were able to accept in indulging this habit, but I would not let the price rise to where Mr. Middleman decides that he’s going to sell you that crack cocaine, and in order to get it he’s going to fumble around in people’s living rooms or steal women’s purses or mug people.
http://www.thirteen.org/openmind/the-law/on-legalizing-drugs…with-william-f-buckley/181/