Great, by that perverse logic, let’s legalize terrorism, so we can end the “war on terror”.
How does the war on terror incentivize additional endangerment of innocent people?
And on another level how does your notion of ending the war on drugs by joining the enemy impact state’s rights? Does the federal government have the power to decide illegal drugs are suddenly legal, constraining every state from the power to enforce their own drug laws against drug contraband shipped to their state through interstate commerce?
Of course not.
I agree.
The states must have consent. The federal government is Big Brother, but fortunately the federal government is constrained by the Constitution.
So you support each state's right to legalize drugs within its borders without federal interference?
Now you sound like a lib. If we would only embrace our enemies they'd love us, and we'd all just get along. You demonize some of the tactics of the War on Terror, with the implied parallel argument of demonizing some of the tactics of the War on Drugs in order to discredit the effort, but you make an overly sweeping assertion. A society has a right to community standards. Anarchy is not a right. The absence of the rule of law is not freedom.
So you support each state's right to legalize drugs within its borders without federal interference?
Naturally. Every state is a miniature experiment. The states with stupid ideas (e.g. high taxes, reverse discrimination in hiring, excessive welfare-state benefits that discourage productivity,....legalizing heroin?) will eventually suffer because of their ill-considered practices. The states with better ideas will thrive, and eventually the states with stupid ideas will adopt the practices of the successful states. Federalism, as envisioned by the founders.
I see you're falling into the pattern of a typical 'liberal-tarian', with a parochial habit of continually asking questions in lieu of a coherent defense.