Replies

"If the consequence of indiscriminate drug use was unemployment without legal recourse, cirrhosis of the liver without government medicaid, dying in an alley without anyone stopping to look, mandatory attempted murder charges against anyone driving a vehicle with ANY intoxicant in their system, etc., then I might have more sympathy to their cause. But as long as society has to carry the burden of the dregs of druggies, it also has the right to try to abate the problem in any way the society collectively decides."

You opinion is exactly how I feel.

Is the Drug War a Conservative vs Liberal issue?

No...

It's a Constitutionalist vs Prohibitionist issue.

The Constitutution's 14th Amendment makes clear that no law shall abridge our rights to life, liberty or property without due process.
Prohibitionary type laws do so. There is no delegated government power to prohibit in our Constitution.

No level of government, fed, state or local, is authorized to outright prohibit guns, tobacco, booze, drugs, etc.. -- Our governments are empowered to 'reasonably regulate' such objects, within the Constitutional bounds that protect individual rights, privileges and immunities.

What is truly amazing is that such a basic & understandable Constitutional concept can be opposed by certain groups of Conservatives & Liberals alike.

Lex Baird wrote:
" ---- as long as society has to carry the burden of the dregs of druggies, it also has the right to try to abate the problem in any way the society collectively decides."

Sensei Ern wrote:
" -- Your opinion is exactly how I feel."

Society "collectively decides" abatements in socialistic states, not in our Constitutional Republic.

Advocating collectivism is as bad a political gaff as advocating prohibitions.