Why so little faith in people? "Drugs" covers a lot of territory. Some, like caffeine aren't a big thing. Others, like meth or heroin loom much larger. Still others like alcohol or marijuana lie somewhere in between. Seeing them as evil incarnate is no closer to reality than seeing them as "no big thing". Public policy has to be based on objective, substantiative criteria, or it will be seen as specious and arbitrary. Your entire argument relies on associating the reformers with a socialist who is friendly to Hillary Clinton. It is little more than an ad hominem attack. Logically, it is irrational and irrelevant, yet you persist in the notion that it is, in and of itself, the only criteria worth considering. It is no more a basis for determining policy than Harry Anslinger's statements about white women having sex with jazz musicians.
I am not as concerned since the beating your pro-drug side(Hillary/Soros/MrLeRoy) took at the ballot box on November 5th, 2002, with your pet pro-drug state intitatives.
The most important issue is ability of the voters to decide for themselves. If the issue itself was that cut and dried, there wouldn't ever have been a referendum. The fact that there was enough support to challenge the federal government on the issue should be a clue that there is something basically wrong with the way the federal government is handling it.
JMO tactical, but I beleive you wish that Gore had won in 2000, especially since his idealogical predecessor(Clinton) had ushered in an era where pro-drug intiatives won at the ballot box.
IMO, Clinton did have a hand in helping get those initiatives passed. Not because he supported them, but because they were a symbolic rebellion of the kind of federal omnipotence that his kind of policies represent. You refuse to see the danger in arbitrary power, you only care that it be used to advance an agenda to your liking.
Our disagreement is more over the means than the ends, but you will only debate in terms of the ends, and then only in perjoratives, like "pro-drug", because while the end justifies the means to you, you rightly fear that it will not stand examination in the light of day.
I have seen the "ends" of your policy and it happened in the late 60's and 70's where rampant drug use was no big deal and generally accepted.
Clinton tried to bring back those halcyon days back, but failed.
You have a right to defend the perpetuation of the drug culture of those times, but don't tread on me when I point out the failures of your "golden" era.