[madameguinot]

Grrr. When you read the whole article, the authors explain her statement away by again accepting the assinine premise,
“critics contend Reagan ramped up the issue for political purposes during the 1980s.” Who’s being political? Cook County has the most lenient drug and gun crime laws (that’s gun crime not gun laws) for an large urban area. And why? Apparently to protect the small part of her constituency who are killing others.

[nathanbedford]

When a drug smuggler accepts a side job and guides Islamicists bearing an atomic weapon across the border into the United States and an American city is wiped out, will we then finally reconsider our "war" on drugs?

When it develops that that atomic bomb was paid for in American dollars from proceeds of the poppy crop in Afghanistan, will we reconsider our "war" on drugs?

When our entire criminal justice system breaks down from corruption will we reconsider our "war" on drugs?

When drug cartels become so well funded and so bold that they openly challenge our constitutional institutions such as they are now doing in Mexico and wage bloody terroristic intimidations in America, will we reconsider our "war" on drugs?

[GrandJediMasterYoda]

Yes that evil Reagan preventing all those kids from getting on drugs. It’s amazing to me how many “Bidens” are in politics today. Does it ever end?

[Cenobite]

Jim Edgar is out of jail?

[varyouga]

In the 1980s, the CIA was assisting certain drug smugglers and gangs to indirectly fund Nicaraguan Contras. While there is no evidence that Reagan knew of this program, it happened on his watch. It is very similar to Fast & Furious.

The reporter that broke the story, Gary Bell, was found with two gunshot wounds to the head. His death was ruled a suicide of course. Also, there was never a police statement that said any guns were found at the scene...

You can read more at my post 15 here: http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/2918765/posts?page=15#15

[zeugma]

She’d have been better off just pointing out how horribly destructive to our liberty the ‘war on (some) drugs’ has been. Back in the day, when people still more or less understood that our government was designed to be one of limited powers, it was necessary to pass a constitutional amendment to ban the sale of alcohol. That worked out really well, so it was repealed by another amendment. Unfortunately, many of the drug laws we are saddled with today reach back to precedents established during prohibition for their legitimacy. Strange, isn’t it, that the repeal of prohibition didn’t seem to have any effect on laws that were based on it?

[x]

When have we not been at war with drugs? It looks like it started in the 1910s or 1920s or 1930s.

If somebody doesn't agree with it and doesn't want to point the finger at Wilson or Hoover or Roosevelt, they could blame Nixon for "ramping up" enforcement in the 1970 after drug use had greatly increased.

Reagan doesn't seem to have a major player in this -- apart from the "Just Say No" media campaign and the mandatory minimum sentences that were introduced in 1986.

If I understand correctly, the mandatory minimum sentencing guidelines law that Congress -- then controlled by Democrats -- passed was tougher than what Reagan originally proposed.