How can I have a rational debate on the issue with someone who believes the sinister purpose of the “War On Drugs” is to create work for prison unions?
Oh boy...that is not what I wrote. You are the irrational one here. The war on drugs is noble in its motive, but things always get corrupted in the institutions of most men. There is something obviously all screwed up with America having the largest prison population in the civilized, where also criminals get more hardened. Brubaker is a great movie you should see about prison corruptions. And please stop continuing to twist my valid points.
How can I have a rational debate with anyone who asserts that opposition to the War on Drugs (WoD) means I'm a druggie, or endorse drug use.
Look at how the WoD-supporters label it: legalizers &mmdash; this indicates a huge and fundamental deficiency of understanding on the issue. This deficiency is encouraged by the [federal] government precisely because it gives them more power, but let's look into it.
First, let's start with precedence (and I hate precedence because it all too often means the judiciary cherry-picking what they want) — the 18th Amendment was required to allow the federal government the ability to prohibit alcohol; no such amendment exists with respect to drugs.
Second, the WoD is justified as valid congressional regulation (via the interstate commerce-clause) by holding that congress may regulate intrastate commerce because of its impact on interstate commerce (see Wickard v Filburn). This view of congress's regulatory powers was further expanded by holding that congress may in like manner regulate noncommerce (see Gonzalez v Raich) — the first paragraph of Justice Thomas's dissent reads:
Respondents Diane Monson and Angel Raich use marijuana that has never been bought or sold, that has never crossed state lines, and that has
had no demonstrable effect on the national market for marijuana. If Congress can regulate this under the Commerce Clause, then it can
regulate virtually anything–and the Federal Government is no longer one of limited and enumerated powers.
Third, many of the [federal] agencies tasked with the WoD are aiding the cartels. (See U.S. Agents Launder Mexican Profits of Drug Cartels for a NY Times story on it, or any of the Fast & Furious threads.)
Fourth, the WoD has had a directly detrimental effect on 9 of 10 Bill of Rights Amendments. (This alone should make one question the wisdom of the WoD.)
Fifth, given items #1 and #2 the legitimacy of the War on Drugs is seriously compromised — to assert otherwise is to assert that the constitution is whatever the supreme court says it is… in so doing you assert that the USSC is of greater authority that the very constitution that established it, and declare that the sent is greater than that which sends.
Sixth, the War on Drugs is arguably Treason as defined by the Constitution:
Seventh, given items #3 & #6 — and that the Mexican Cartels are definitionally terrorist groups, the aiding of which is illegal by our own laws and thereby state-sponsored terrorism… which members of our own government have cited as impetus for forced government changes.
So there's seven big points of failure, both moral and legal, in supporting the War on Drugs.