"That the majority of the people currently support the war on drugs does nothing to make the means of enforcing it, which still don't work, any less like the measures of an occupying army."
Quit lying.
If you have a substantive disagreement, present it.
"A non-tyrannical government exists to protect the persons and property of everyone inside its jurisdiction by punishing domestic criminals and defeating foreign attackers, and as such is an ally and supporter of the people. To the extent that a government exists for any other purpose, especially a purpose which aims to force human nature to fit an artificial ideal, it must treat the people as an enemy to be subdued."
If I may, sir, it is when the sovereigns of a Constitutional Republic, the people, fail to maintain vigorous involvement in their election process that the Republic is in greatest peril. The rise of a criminal enterpirse democrat party and a gelatinous-spined Republican party have greatly imperiled this Republic because the somnambulent electorate have irresponsible representatives ... neither tyrranical or non-tyrranical, merely shortsightedly self-absorbed. Hopefully, with this war on a religious totalitarian enemy the people will waken and remain awake when the peace comes.
[BTW, I enjoyed your article, and I happen to agree with much of your agenda in writing the article the way you focused it. You used a reference to the Taliban in a generic sense of the people, then responded to my simplistic critique in a specific application (only if the populace is roughly 50% female, does your assertion works non-generically).]