Replies

I'm not lumping myself in with those men, as in their gifts and character they are head and shoulders above you and I....however, none of those believed in the need for or even constitutional allowance of prohibition of intoxicating substances, be they halucinogenic or not.

Prohibition of alcohol from the federal government required a constitutional ammendment, rightly so--as the constitution has nothing to say about alcohol. Neither also does it have anything to say about drugs--so why isn't an ammendment required to outlaw drugs? Government authorities have just assumed those powers--the constitution be d*mned. Why are libertarians the only ones to point that out?

Why not be consistent in the desire for limited, constitutional government? Instead conservatives tend toward unconstitutional rationalisms for government power for the things important to them to control, while looking for little government in areas like commerce or religion... The same attitudes and structures that demand big intrusive government powers to regulate some private behavior can and are used to regulate commercial, family, and religious behavior--to everyone's detriment.

I don't and never have used illegal drugs...not something healthy or important to me--yet I see this as symtomatic to the assumptions American's have that government will solve personal and social problems--a role it shouldn't have, and a role the constitution doesn't give it. Churches, civic associations, and all manner of voluntary mostly local groups exist to help solve all kinds of problems--BETTER than the government ever has.

Look at AA for example--a FAR better success rate for alcaholism recovery than any government scheme--and its VOLUNTARY. Why aren't we all drunks in America? Prohibition is over, and alcahol is widely available...but voluntary solutions are working, to keep this problem under control--vs. some countries like Russia, where its estimated by responsible groups that 1 of 3 Russian men is alcoholic. Yet there, in spite of Communism's demise, they have a LONG history of government-only "solutions," which of course don't work.

You can't advocate socialistic/government solutions in one area, without logially risking socialistic/government intrusions in other areas... the elephant doesn't stay in his cage, he sits where he wants.