Replies

"Prohibition will work great injury to the cause of temperance. It is a species of intemperance within itself, for it goes beyond the bounds of reason in that it attempts to control a man's appetite by legislation, and makes a crime out of things that are not crimes. A Prohibition law strikes a blow at the very principles upon which our government was founded."

Well, first of all, Lincoln wasn't one of the Founders. But I'm not arguing here for or against the drug war. If it can be demonstrated that ending the drug war is better for social order than prosecuting the drug war, then conservatives should call to end it. The problem is that the law teaches, and by bannning drugs we teach people that it's not O.K. to do drugs.

I'm just making the broader point that we live in a culture, and we have a right, as a society, to prohibit behaviors that are corrosive to order, such as bigamy, homosexuality, bestiality, pornography,etc.

Well, first of all, Lincoln wasn't one of the Founders. But I'm not arguing here for or against the drug war. If it can be demonstrated that ending the drug war is better for social order than prosecuting the drug war, then conservatives should call to end it. The problem is that the law teaches, and by bannning drugs we teach people that it's not O.K. to do drugs.

Then you believe that the Government is the sole source of morality, and that people are unable to teach proper behavior in their own homes, or that private schools are unable to teach good ethics? Once again, this is the mindset of the Socialist, not the Conversative. Do you think yourself that bad a parent that you must surrender the reigns of control over your childs development to The Federal State?

Laws are merely there to protect individual rights. Do you speed? Obviously speeding laws don't teach people speeding is wrong. Parents teaching their kids the possible conseqeuences of speeding does. Do you think that hate-crime laws alone teach people hate crimes are wrong? So you think a Neo-Nazi isn't going to vandalize a synagogue merely because there is a law against it? What is so magically specially about marijuana, for instance, that makes doing it "wrong", while alcohol is "right". Is marijuana bad merely because it's illegal? Is it illegal because it's bad? Where does the circular logic end? Alcohol was illegal once. Was the point of that law to teach people alcohol is bad? When the law was lifted, and alcohol was relegalized, did it suddenly become good? What magical event took place that changed alcohol from "good" to "bad" to "good" again?

I'm just making the broader point that we live in a culture, and we have a right, as a society, to prohibit behaviors that are corrosive to order, such as bigamy, homosexuality, bestiality, pornography,etc.

Please define "society" Please tell me where "society" lives. The Government is not design to arbitrate morality. It is merely a tool to protect the inaliable rights as endowed by our creator. Certainly, states have the rights to pass anti-homosexuality laws, and the like, but it seems folly to me. If you don't want your children engaging in certain "victimless behaviors", then you need to teach them your own damn self, intead of expecting the Government to take over for you. Thats the problem with this country. Too many people expect the Government to raise their kids for them, so as we get more and more towards Socialism, personal responsibility is DISCOURAGED. After all, Mommy and Daddy Federal Government will clean the mess up.

Certainly, States have the right to pass the laws they want. While I don't approve of some of the laws, I would rather see the States handling the issue. That makes it easier to either move to a State that is governed to my liking, or makes it easier to campaign to get the laws changed.

The problem is that the law teaches, and by bannning drugs we teach people that it's not O.K. to do drugs.

Alcohol is legal. By your logic that means that we are teaching people that it's OK to drink alcohol.

But what happens when someone drives while intoxicated, causes a wreck, and kills someone else? In this case alcohol use - while perfectly legal in and of itself - infringes on the rights (to life, happiness, etc.) of others, at which time society applies the laws which are in place to handle this situation. And only in this case are the laws applied. As long as no injury to anyone else occurs, the alcohol drinker is perfectly fine, legally.

In the same way, legalizing drugs would teach it is OK to do drugs - in the privacy of your own house. Just as with drunk driving, if drug use caused someone to harm another person, laws would be in place to handle that situation.

Since alcohol is already legal, and legalized drugs could be handled in a similar manner, please tell me why the entire situation isn't hypocritical to the max, and why drugs should not be legalized.

"The problem is that the law teaches, and by bannning drugs we teach people that it's not O.K. to do drugs."

By approving of *federal* banning of drugs, conservatives teach people that conservatives don't give a d@mn about the Constitution. (We all already know that liberals don't give a d@mn about the Constitution.)

If you conservatives want *federal* laws banning drugs, you'd better start working on the appropriate Constitutional amendments, right away! Otherwise, the lesson that you're giving (that you don't care about The Law) is much worse than a "lesson" that you don't care about the harm drugs cause.

Mark (Libertarian)

P.S. By the way, it's really nonsense to claim that legalization equals acceptance. Cigarettes are legal, but you'll find virtually no one who would say that means that cigarette smoking is "O.K."

The problem is that the law teaches, and by bannning drugs we teach people that it's not O.K. to do drugs.

Ethics exist independently of law. When the state attempts to replace an ethical code, especially a rational one, with its own it's pure folly.