Two questions....
1. We had to pass the 18th Amendment to ban booze. What is the Constitutional basis for the drug war?
2. If what's happening in Oregon has you agitated, please explain why this poster is not stupid?
I firmly understand the impact drugs has on people. I've seen it. I've also seen the impact booze has on people. They're both ugly. Why the double-standard?
I agree on cutting the government "bail out" of addicts. And I get the slippery slope argument. So why not pass a Constitutional amendment banning drugs? It's what the Founders would support. But let's not fool ourselves. We are either we are for freedom and the Constitution or not. You can't be partly pregnant.
There is no Constitutional basis for the Federal government's war on drugs. It is not a power given to the Fedgov by the Constitution and those powers which are not expressly granted are reserved to the States and the People.
If a State's Constitution empowers the State to regulate drugs then have at it. There was a time when the States were called the Laboratories of Democracy and each was free to try their own methods to solve their own problems and much was learned by the various attempts to find solutions. Not so much anymore with so many of the one-size-fits-all mandates being forced on the States by the leviathan Federal government. I'm glad to see Oregon trying a new approach to the problems drugs cause. I'm also glad I don't live there.