[bassmaner]

Conservatives have a few hang ups of their own.

The so-called 'war on drugs' comes to mind. Conservatives normally make arguments based on facts, but the Drug Warrior crowd that self-identifies as 'conservative' always falls back on emotional arguments to justify tyrannical overreach in the name of the WOD (ie. 'if just one child can be saved' yadda yadda yadda).

[wbill]

Yep, good example. In general I agree with you, but my only negative comment is that people aren't mugging little old ladies to buy Happy Meals. Meth heads do just that to get their fix, every day.

The question is more one of, "Where do you draw the line?", IMHO. Is a little pot on the weekend OK? What about heroin or coke? What about the middle aged housewife who has a friendly doctor write a scrip for a few extra pills of OxyContin? Is it OK if it's just for her own use, or is it OK if she gives a few to a friend? What if she sells them?

Then, once a "line" has been determined, how is it enforced? Do you cut off the source? Or do you go after the demand? Right now, we're trying to do both, and accomplishing neither.

Or, do you say "All rightee....anything goes. Sell it all and tax the hell out of it!" I dunno. Society has dug ourselves so deep that I don't think there's a good answer to any of it.

[wbill]

OH and BTW, you're absolutely right on the "If one child can be saved" argument.

I think that it's entirely possible that America will become a tyrannical state, and it will all be done incrementally "For the Children".

[Persevero]

It’s possible to oppose drug legalization and still oppose the war on drugs.

I support laws against recreational drug abuse. But I don’t support no-knock warrants, seizure of assets, or the presumption of guilt.