[supercat]

I totally agree with Buckley on this. I don’t see how any conservative who believes in limited government and individual rights could possibly approve of the failed “War On Drugs”.

I think there needs to be a clear line drawn between legalization and decriminalization.

If something is completely legal, that generally implies that one may do it regardless of whether it bothers other people.

If something is regarded as a serious crime, then it is appropriate for the government to track down the perpetrators even in the absence of specific complaints.

I would suggest that most drug offenses should occupy a middle ground. Police shouldn't try to track down people who are using drugs without bothering other people, but they should be allowed to act against those who do bother others.

[KoRn]

" I would suggest that most drug offenses should occupy a middle ground. Police shouldn't try to track down people who are using drugs without bothering other people, but they should be allowed to act against those who do bother others."

I agree. It would be sufficient if it were regarded by the law in the same way as liquor.

[coloradan]

Well, in that case no drug laws are needed, because there are already laws against bothering other people. (And if you do criminally bother others, it shouldn’t matter under the law whether you are on drugs or not.)

[ravinson]

I would suggest that most drug offenses should occupy a middle ground. Police shouldn't try to track down people who are using drugs without bothering other people, but they should be allowed to act against those who do bother others.

You need to define "bothering other people". Property rights generally determine whether any particular behavior is sufficiently "bothersome" to warrant police action. You may "bother me" when you dress strangely, but that doesn't mean I should be able to have you arrested for dressing that way. The issue of what offensive behavior you can get away with in public will always be a problem as long as we have "public" (i.e government owned) property.

[Trailerpark Badass]

but they should be allowed to act against those who do bother others.

There are crimes against all of the things people on drugs do that "bother" other people.

[hunter112]

Alcohol already occupies that middle ground. I can buy beer, wine, and spirits, and as long as I don't drive drunk, or show up intoxicated (and obnoxious) in public, I'm within my rights. If I decide that I have a problem with my drinking (or crimes against the citizenry lead a judge to tell me the same information) I can seek treatment and recovery.

Sounds to me like Bill Buckley was advocating the application of science rather than pure ideology to our government's handling of the drug situation.

[robertpaulsen]

"Police shouldn't try to track down people who are using drugs without bothering other people"

Are you saying this happens a lot? Quite frankly, I don't remember it ever happening.

Sure, there are a lot of arrests for drug trafficking or drug dealing. Raids on crack houses, shooting galleries, drug dealer's houses. Arrests for buying and selling drugs. Even arrests for finding drugs during a traffic stop.

But I can't recall one single instance where the cops tracked down some drug user who was doing drugs in the privacy of his home, bothering no one, and arrested him. 1.5 million drug arrests every year and I'm not aware that even ONE of them was as you described.

So, excuse me, but what are you talking about?