[fporretto]

Sheldon Richman is an intelligent and articulate man, but he might not know modern conservatives as well as he thinks. A surprising number are coming over to the pro-legalization position. The most prominent names include Wiliam F. Buckley, J. Peter Grace and George Shultz. Many have said that the accelerating corruption of law enforcement and the assault on civil liberties are their main reasons for being willing to abandon the Drug War.

The best thing about conservatism and conservatives is that they have a healthy regard for reality. They won't discard the evidence to preserve a theory. That can't be said of leftists.

Freedom, Wealth, and Peace,
Francis W. Porretto
Visit the Palace Of Reason: http://palaceofreason.com

[Yo-Yo]

As a (non-using) Conservative, I have long advocated the end to Tobacco Farmer's Subsidies, and the legalization (and taxation) of Marijuana.

That said, I would draw the line at Pot. Cocaine, powder or Crack, Heroin, Meth and other forms of Speed are too dangerous to be used privately. However, if Pot were legalized, it would no longer be a 'gateway' drug to these other harder drugs, because the customers would not be dealing with the criminal element to obtain it.

[tahiti]

"It can’t be because there is no amendment in the U.S. Constitution that specifies a right to ingest the substance of one’s choice."

Yes, there is an "amendment in the U.S. Constitution that specifies a right to ingest the substance of one's choice," it is the Ninth Amendment:

"The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people."

Since the Ninth Amendment is the constitutional basis for a "woman's right to her body," and thus, the right to an abortion, it surely can be the constitutional basis for ingestation in to one's body of the drug of their choice.

The federal Congress' legislative jurisdiction to make laws "prohibiting drugs" comes from Article I, Section 8, Clause 3, the "commerce clause." But this legislative jurisdiction is for the act of "distribution" across state lines only, not private and personal ingestation.

I will relunctantly grant our federal government legislative jurisdiction over the distribution of drugs across state lines. But will not grant jurisdiction within the boundaries of a state, as Article I, Section 8, Clause 17, clearly defines Congress' jurisdiction. And no where in that enumerated power is the Congress' legislative jurisdiction within the boundaries of a state, unless the state's legislature grants that legislative jurisdiction. (Missouri, where I live, has not.)

But even acknowledging interstate distribution legislative jurisdiction, Congress cannot prohibit the private "growing" or "manufacture" of drugs for personal consumption.

Unfortunately, we all have been intimidated into granting legislative and judicial jurisdiction to our federal government because of our federal government's illegal and unconstituional seizures and arrests of fellow citizens.

Oh, the high price we pay of loss liberties because we do not know how to exert our unalienable rights, guaranteed and enumerated for all to know, in our state and federal constitutions.

[verity]

"Decriminalizing the use of and trade in drugs would take the drug industry away from the most violent elements of society and place them in the open marketplace, where civil dispute resolution would replace gunfights.

Crazy Sheldon's Drug and Gun Emporium. [This week's special is free meth with the purchase of a Glock. Sampling of either or both on the premises is encouraged.]

[NC_Libertarian]

Bump

[NC_Libertarian]

FYI

[NC_Libertarian]

FYI

[NC_Libertarian]

FYI

[Storm Orphan]

The gun prohibition and drug prohibition arguments are identical.

Good post.

[A CA Guy]

Guns don't alter your minds like drugs do for all the addicts. Addicts also help sponsor terrorism around the world by funding them by buying drugs.

Be American by getting free of Drugs! Stop the support of terrorists!

[William Terrell]

You know, it's almost as if some group sat down to a brainstorm session a couple decades ago and said, "Ok, now we need to wean Americans away from their liberties, but we got to have a good excuse, then we need to get those guns before we can really advance our most prgressive programs. . ."

Am I being too cynical?

[lds23]

You can start by telling me why MTV and Hollywood aggrandizes drug use as glamorous. Because it enslaves and cripples our youth, our promise of tomorrow. It takes away the desire to build up something over years, replacing it with instant gratification. It replaces long-term values with short term ones, which fits into the media's attempt to sell happiness.

[E.Allen]

I am ultra conservative, am an LEO, own class III weapons, (machine guns, full, not semi auto) and agree with the points you've made.

An unbiased, dispassionate analysis of history would reveal that prohibition (alcohol) was a bonanza for organized crime. In fact, I believe there was evidence Al Capone even supported politicians that were trying to keep it in place when it was finally repealed. He was trying to protect his income source. Do some research, the parallels are amazing with the drug wars.

I have no desire to take recreational drugs, never even tried pot, thought it made my friends stupid. I couldn't care less if they were all legal. The only caveat I offer is that if you burn your brain out you don't get to collect gov't money for being disabled.

[sendtoscott]

btt