[tpaine]

And why do you see our WOD's as a success?

Again, I have never said that I consider the "war on drugs" (WOD) a success. Rather, what I have said is that a societal value must be established and maintained that discourages non-productive, resource draining citizen activity such as abuse of drugs.

You think our prohibitive 'war' is a "societal value", -- whatta load.
Sure, the WOD's "discourages non-productive, resource draining citizen activity such as abuse of drugs"; -- at the cost of ~losing~ the "societal value" of our Constitutional rule of law..

Legalization of recreational drug use is a de facto "encouragement," rather than "discouragement" of non-productive, resource draining citizen activity.

The initial criminalization of recreational drug use was a de facto, unconstitutional "discouragement" of productive government activity.

[Lucky Dog]

You think our prohibitive 'war' is a "societal value", -- whatta load.

You are extremely mistaken in your perception of what I think. Again, please note that I have never said any such thing.

As a matter of clarity for you, let me point out that one can no more make “war” on drugs (inanimate objects) than one can make war on “terror” (the tactic of attacking non-military targets and individuals in an attempt to break an enemy’s will). The so-called “war on drugs” is a misnomer invented as a public relations ploy to refer to a combination of police actions, diplomatic initiatives, publicity campaigns, and other activities intended to reduce citizen use and abuse of substances which make them, not just non-productive, but resource drains on society. This so-called “war on drugs” is not a “societal value.” Rather, it is the embodiment of an action to support an underlying societal value. Has this exposition clarified the issue for you?

Sure, the WOD's "discourages non-productive, resource draining citizen activity such as abuse of drugs"; -- at the cost of ~losing~ the "societal value" of our Constitutional rule of law..

Perhaps, you could cite the portion of the US Constitution that specifically prohibits Congress from restricting/regulating the interstate and intra-country trade in recreational hallucinogens and narcotics. Conceivably, you were thinking of the Tenth Amendment? However, surely you must know that the “Commerce Clause” gives Congress certain regulatory powers that the Tenth Amendment does not abrogate. Additionally, nothing in the US Constitution, of which I am aware, prohibits state governments from regulating and/or restricting such drug use.

Legalization of recreational drug use is a de facto "encouragement," rather than "discouragement" of non-productive, resource draining citizen activity.

The initial criminalization of recreational drug use was a de facto, unconstitutional "discouragement" of productive government activity.

While I certainly agree that the … initial criminalization of recreational drug use… was a de facto… "discouragement", I must disagree that it was either, unconstitutional, or a discouragement of productive government activity. Rather, such criminalization was discouragement of societal resource draining behavior. The relative success of the discouragement is certainly debatable. However, this discouragement’s bases, in both, law and philosophy, is not uncertain at all.