Replies

All this arguing over whether or not Rush is a hypocrit is skirting the underlying issue, and that issue is the war on drugs. Only now it's getting emotional because Rush is caught (or has put himself) in the middle of it. Let's just get right down to it: What is the federal governments legitimate role in drug prohibition? If some people don't want to even have the discussion, fine...just say so, but name-calling and condescension on BOTH sides of the argument isn't going to advance any ideas or take Rush off the hot seat. Since nothing is ever done half-way forever, this is going to resolve itself in a generation by either the drug war being abandoned or the establishment of an all-out police state. Either way, the drugs are still going to be here on the streets, in the boardrooms, in private homes and even in the jails where we put people to keep them from dealing.

I'm not here to explicitly call Rush a hypocrit. I believe he is, but the larger issue is, as you said, the "War on Drugs". It took me a long time to come to that realization, but I finally got there.

Rush brings new focus on the issue, because it's found another prominant media figure. This time, they guy's a Conservative, not a Liberal Holly-weird actor/activist. If handled correctly, we might be able to use this to enjoin an honest and open discussion on the WOD's failures.

What is the federal governments legitimate role in drug prohibition?

In my opinion? I believe that the legality or illegality of drugs should be handled at the state level, barring a constitutional amendment. I think that the role of the Federal government should be to regulate the trade in substances made illegal by the various states. Is that a terse enough answer for you?

Since nothing is ever done half-way forever, this is going to resolve itself in a generation by either the drug war being abandoned or the establishment of an all-out police state.

I think this assertion is false. Almost every law we have is done "half-way" and does not inevitably get abandoned or result in a police state. That crime exists in almost all areas suggests that no law can be 100% effective. Abuses occur when people expect 100% enforcement. Don't feed that beast, because if you make the only two choices 100% or 0%, people will pick 100% on you and then you'll have your police state.

Either way, the drugs are still going to be here on the streets, in the boardrooms, in private homes and even in the jails where we put people to keep them from dealing.

And? We've got laws against theft, rape, and murder and these things still go on in the streets, in private homes, and in the jails. Are you suggesting that we should make these things legal?