As it stands today if a state wants to restrict the use of alchohol they can. Why not simply let them extend the laws to limit drugs and get the fed out of the drug business? Then if Cali wants to be the hippie state they can on their own dime and states like Utah can profit from drug use fines. I think this is the only compromise between the Republican and Liberatarian views, after all we are CONSERVATIVES first and party supporters second, right?
I don't disagree with your perspective. It would certainly be a start. However, I do think it is necessary that any drug fight undertaken by a state be constrained by proper limits on prosecutorial power. And I do think it is appropriate that state laws on the issue be consistent, logical, and that punishments be commensurate with the harm.
Let's take, for example, the recent Federal restriction on student aid - if you have a misdemeanor pot possession conviction, you can't get student loans. But if you are a convicted rapist, you can. Or a convicted murderer. Or if you have been convicted of loan fraud. These penalties apply only to drug crimes. I'm sure presidio loves such laws, but they make no sense. Then again, it seems he loves all laws that restrict freedom.
No where in the Constitution is the right to be a druggie either. What's your point?