[tacticalogic]

JUST in case this didn't address your points, what is your basic premise? You haven't really made that clear. If it's that states will have the money to spend on drug wars because the federal government will be substantially reduced in size, I agree. If it's the fact that states will still have the power to wage drugs wars if they want to, I agree.

Both of those.

And while we agree on some points, I tell you now, without malice, that if you come to me with statements like this:

"It is also true that states could not afford to wage a real war on drugs if they didn’t have the help of the Feds in waging it."

you should be prepared to back them up with facts and well reasoned arguments. If you are not prepared to defend that statement as objectively defensible truth, do not present it to me as such.

[10thAmendmentGuy]

Perhaps part of the reason that it became so difficult is that you already had them conflated in your head:

Quote:

Don’t drag me into a semantic mess that’s got drug legalization conflated with ending the federal drug war and where nobody involved understands the difference or cares that there is one.

See? You're the only one that viewed it as a semantic mess. If you're going to engage in two distinct arguments then it's no wonder you are getting confused.

[RickB444]

That’s all these libertarian fools have is assumptions. They base their statements on what they believe will happen and ignore what history has already shown us. This whole argument is an exercise wasted time.

Teaching a libertarian or liberal to use logic is like trying to teach a pig to sing. It wastes your time and annoys the pig.