>> It’s a shame more so-called “small government” conservatives fail to realize or simply do not care what the War On Drugs has done to the Fourth Amendment and prison budgets.
> It’s evidence liberals and those conservatives really do not differ - they both want and welcome Government into their lives, just for slightly different reasons.
Points about liberty vs use of government for social good purpose are well-taken.
I am not so libertarian that I’d forbid the government from intervening when Party A does something to harm innocent Party B while I am observing as Party C.
This is one of the legitimate purposes of government: to enforce contracts. Or, in this case, to prevent Party A from imposing his will against the interests of less powerful Party B, who has not agreed to a contract with A.
In the case of drugs and alcohol and gambling, many Party A’s do indeed infringe on the freedoms and liberties of many Party B’s: their spouses, children, neighbors, communities by their use and abuse of intoxicants.
We conservatives, unlike liberals and unlike full-fledged libertarians, do believe in the use of government to intervene in contract breeches. The data on drug, alcohol, and gambling is strong enough that we can predict a widespread deleterious effect on spouses, friends, children, etc. when these vices are legalized and freely available. The conservative can remain a conservative and support criminalization of a narrow range of vices.
How does Party A's use or even abuse of intoxicants infringe on the freedoms and liberties of their neighbors or communities? (Spouses and children is a valid point - for those users who have them and who use to the point of neglecting their obligations.)