The War on Drugs is Lost

I believe that legalizing drugs is a very dumb idea politically and socially.

And the war on Drugs has been such a political and social sucess?

BTW, the topic of this post is The National Reviews new public stance on the drug war. It is childish on your part to paint(or smear, if you will) all conservatives opposed to the WOD's with what you consider a "libertarian" brush. It is intellectually dishonest on your part and an insult to many long time conservative Republicans such as myself.

I didn't smear republicans. I used the LP as evidence of the lack of support for legalizing drugs...that is all. I pointed out how limited the support is for the LP, and I believe it is in large meassure due to their anti-WOD and legalizing drugs stands....I could be wrong, but I think history will show that I am not...If I have inadvertently "smeared" republicans, I assure you that it was never my intent. Buckley's view on drugs has not new. It is a long standing one, and every evidence I have seen shows that the large majority of republicans do not share his views....There is probably more support with in the GOP ranks for ending the WOD (I would not think a majority though), than there is support for legalization.

This is ALWAYS to game you boys play....(post #46)
Listen, little one…(post #85)
If there is one thing I detest more than a leftist liberal, it is a MODERATE… (post #89)
from the small third party gaggle of honking geese that causes so many to flee… (post #239)
The problem is that you boys…(post #240)
I know when you little ones are rattled… (post #267)
how childish you become… (post #273)

I wouldn't hire someone who resorts to childish name calling (post #284)

Obviously, your boss has no qualms in that area.

Goodbye…

I win again.

Well...keep this in mind.

A like enervation pervades our society with respect to the State, and for like reasons. It affects especially those who take the State's pretensions at face value and regard it as a social institution whose policies of continuous intervention are wholesome and necessary; and it also affects the great majority who have no clear idea of the State, but merely accept it as something that exists, and never think about it except when some intervention bears unfavourably upon their interests.

Thus it is that what we are attempting to do in this rapid survey of the historical progress of certain ideas, is to trace the genesis of an attitude of mind, a set of terms in which now practically everyone thinks of the State; and then to consider the conclusions towards which this psychical phenomenon unmistakably points. Instead of recognizing the State as "the common enemy of all well-disposed, industrious and decent men," the run of mankind, with rare exceptions, regards it not only as a final and indispensable entity, but also as, in the main, beneficent.

The mass-man, ignorant of its history, regards its character and intentions as social rather than anti-social; and in that faith he is willing to put at its disposal an indefinite credit of knavery, mendacity and chicane, upon which its administrators may draw at will.

Instead of looking upon the State's progressive absorption of social power with the repugnance and resentment that he would naturally feel towards the activities of a professional-criminal organization, he tends rather to encourage and glorify it, in the belief that he is somehow identified with the State, and that therefore, in consenting to its indefinite aggrandizement, he consents to something in which he has a share - he is, pro tanto, aggrandizing himself.

Professor Ortega y Gasset analyzes this state of mind extremely well. The mass-man, he says, confronting the phenomenon of the State, "sees it, admires it, knows that there it is. . . . Furthermore, the mass-man sees in the State an anonymous power, and feeling himself, like it, anonymous, he believes that the State is something of his own. Suppose that in the public life of a country some difficulty, conflict, or problem, presents itself, the mass-man will tend to demand that the State intervene immediately and undertake a solution directly with its immense and unassailable resources. . . . When the mass suffers any ill-fortune, or simply feels some strong appetite, its great temptation is that permanent sure possibility of obtaining everything, without effort, struggle, doubt, or risk, merely by touching a button and setting the mighty machine in motion."

Albert J. Nock

Don't fall into the trap.

I am not asleep...and I strongly agree with what you just posted...I took my sons to hear Alan Keyes a couple of years ago...Keyes is very persuasive regarding how we have become slaves to the IRS, etc. I simply take a longer view, that change comes slowly, and until a VIABLE conservative party has a CHANCE of winning, then the change, back to a strict reliance on the Constitution for all laws, will come through the existing party. But, I will always oppose legalizing drugs...I have buried friends...I will never support legalizing drugs. Thanks for a reasoned, and respectful exchange.

Awwwww... what'd you have to go and get nice for?

I kinda view arguing as a sport (it's always been that way in my family.) I didn't take any of your insults any more seriously than I meant my own. No real insult was intended.

We don't agree on the merits of the drug war. That's not a big deal.

Next time, I'll try to approach the debate with a modicum of civility. It's not my usual style, but it's now impossible for me either. 8-)

No problem...by the way, and just for clarification sake, I am not a blank check supporter of the WOD....I believe drugs should stay illegal and we should fix the efforts, rather than just ending the WOD. I am anti-big government, but not anti-government. The reasaon that my rants are usually so strong against the legalize drugs posts, are due to the usual (not evey time) labeling as statist/slaves/shills of those who disagree, and what I view as broad brush painting....in other words, you are either for us or you is a'gin us, seems to be the message....I am for REDUCING the size of government, I am for abolishing the Department of Education (Reagan should have done it), and I am for abolishing the IRS...so I am NOT a statist, but more often than not, if I post my strong views against legalizing drugs the statist label is soon to follow. But back to our exchanges, if memory serves me, and it often does not, we have agreed in the past in battles with the few Clinton defenders who dare tread these grounds. So we have far more in common than that which we are at odds over.

Many of the "evidences" you boys put forth are sky-is-falling red herring tripe, but those of us who live in the real world have better things to do than argue with people who want to legalize addiction.
Your presence on this thread indicates that you aren't living in the real world you say you live in. It also belies all the WODdies who come onto WOsD threads as not living in "the real world" either.
Also, speaking of red herring tripe...people who want to legalize addiction.
How does one go about legalizing addiction? I didn't realize addiction could be legalized.

[The point of third parties is not always to win elections. Third parties have a long history of influencing policy in the two main political parties, even if they never win an election. And the LP seems to be succeeding in that regard, as more and more Americans are coming around to the notion that the current approaches in the drug war are wrong]

Yes, yes, yes. Not a libertarian, but we need to realize that a third party does not have to win the election to win. It is a matter of getting the attention of the one party system we have.

You don't have to be a Libertarian, or want drugs completely or even a little legal to see the War on Drugs has, is, and (in present form) always will be a failure. Assuming stopping drugs is the reason for the 'War'. It is a dismal failure. It has eaten up large chunks of taxpayer dollars. In the name of the 'War' some of our freedoms and rights have been trampled.

It is a failure - no way around it. Not political - just fact.

This thread is very old.
Yes, I noticed that.
Why are you just now responding?
Because I can.
Were you too stoned to notice the date?
No, were you?
I, and a majority of Americans, disagree with you.
Disagree with me about what? Do you mean legalization, decriminalization, abortion, the 2nd Amendment, vote fraud, the UN Sucks and many more things? What?
Maybe you need to read this...AMERICANS ‘HIGH' ON MARIJUANA: POLL
Get over it.
Get over what?
There are more important matters facing the world, and our country,
As there were two months ago when you were still on the thread...
...than the silly idea of legalizing drugs....
And you think restoring Constitutional principles is silly...
...get out of the sand box and move on to adult issues.
Awwww...you're calling me a child. How sweet Nanny.God.gov. Which "real world", adult issue should I direct my efforts towards Nanny.God.gov?

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.