[WindMinstrel]

the original Newsweek article that he mentioned in paragraph 1 can be found here

[headsonpikes]

What is there to discuss, really?

You're either a Socialist, or you're not, and this issue is as good as any to separate sheep from goats.

[FreeTally]

There are some general features of a socialist enterprise, whether it's the Post Office, schools, or the war on drugs. The enterprise is inefficicnt, expensive, very advantageous to a small group of people, and harmful to a lot of people. That was true of socialism in Russia, it was true of socialism in Poland, and it's true of socialism in the United States.

How true! I'm glad the author pointed out the "advantages to a small group of people" part.

[jodorowsky]

The war on drugs and the harm which it does are simply manifestations of a much broader problem: the substitution of political mechanisms for market mechanisms in a wide variety of areas.

Again and bigger:

The war on drugs and the harm which it does are simply manifestations of a much broader problem: the substitution of political mechanisms for market mechanisms in a wide variety of areas.

[serinde]

a bill that would have made all the illegal drugs-all of them-available legally, but would have regulated them like alcohol.

Very nice article. Thanks.

I have never understood why the WOD continues, when the politicians could make everything legal and tax it to death, as they do for alcohol and tobacco. It seems strange that they have deliberately ignored this source of revenue for so long. They've gone after everything else, why not this?

[philman_36]

Heh-heh...check my bookmarks...The Drug War as a Socialist Enterprise

[WindMinstrel]

This is what I was trying to say in http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/737350/posts?page=92#92

[expat_brit]

The depressing thing is, this article is 10 years old and the original Newsweek article is 30 years old. I see no end in sight for the war on drugs. Friedman makes so much sense, I can't understand why most Americans don't feel the same way.

[dcwusmc]

Good find. Professor Friedman is a remarkable man and a remarkably GOOD one!

[Dane]

Uh why then is socialist #1 and good hillary friend, George Soros, the main backer of drug legalization?

[hove]

The drug war is a socialist enterprise. Liberals love the war on drugs. Tax the people...create agencies. Billions of taxpayers dollars going to cops,courts,prisons, and not to mention crooks. And for what. Nothing...that's what. Money down the drain. But then that's what liberals do best. Waste taxpayers money.

[A CA Guy]

I see an obsession of drugs here on FR with all the drug threads!
Plus these Addicted Warriors help get Democrats elected instead of conservatives.
Don't get the attraction here for them in a conservative forum.
I guess the Libertarian home page is so vacant they have to ruin this site.

[logician2u]

Great post!

Anything Milton Friedman says or writes is worth a replay on FR, even if it was 11 years ago.

BTW, the OCR software tripped over a couple of words, most especially Congressman Richard Armey, but the pertinent points were made I think.

[A CA Guy]

We post 10 year old web page material as current articles for debate here now?

[x]

Whether he's right or wrong, Friedman comes across quite well in this presentation and interview. He comes up with arguments for his recommendations, while today, we can get away with a few zingers.

The definition of freedom is involved. Can we freely sell off our freedom? An argument of the prohibitionists is that drug abuse amounts to that, that the drug user gives up his or her freedom.

It's easy to dismiss that if one wishes, but the question about the nature of freedom remains. If freedom is doing as one pleases or non-interference in the actions of others, would a libertarian society have those on its fringes who have sold or leased or lent their rights away in order to gain some temporary advantage?