Free Republic

Take it from those who popularized the term “Neoconservative” in order to self-describe — unless you consider them also to be crap-spewing liberals.

http://www.newamericancentury.org/
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_for_the_New_American_Century

You could first explain how it is possible to take initiative action under any enumerated powers of the executive branch.

The only unilateral policy powers he has are to stop the war and rescind executive orders.

He can’t introduce legislation. He can only veto it.

It takes a Congress to tango.

And if a Republican becomes president, he’s bringing a Republican majority with him.

Unless they pander to Dems for a supermajority, they are going to know real quick that keeping Dr. No happy is the only way to get anything through.

In stark contrast to typical presidents.

I find it comforting that the only justifications trotted out for banning some drugs but not others arrives in the form of easily refuted analogies.

Why is the speed limit 30mph in some places and 100mph in others? Because of the risk one poses to others depending on the road conditions.

Why is alcohol legal but marijuana and cocaine are illegal? It's certainly not because of any risk to others. And it is certainly not in proportion to the magnitude of harm to the self. Are you in favor of seat belt laws?

I can predict that your response will refer to some sort of correlation between illegal drugs and violent and/or economic crime (i.e., real crime). Besides reminding you that using the fruits of prohibition to justify continued prohibition is a circular argument, I might also remind you that the American tradition is not to punish people based on crimes that they might commit. If a junkie or crackhead robs or steals, punish them for robbing and/or stealing.

There is no need to make being a junkie or crackhead a crime in and of itself. And there is certainly no need to criminalize responsible marijuana smokers, as there was never a need to criminalize responsible alcohol drinkers, based on the presumption that some people might act irresponsibly while using those substances.

Have you ever noticed that we didn't have a drug problem before the War on Drugs? It might have something to do with market forces pushing the supply towards extremely potent products that are more easily concealed and have a higher profit density.

Nixon, the mastermind of the WoD, was an advocate of methadone treatment for heroin addicts. Even he recognized that opiate dependency, once entered, was far more effectively treated as a medical issue than as a criminal justice issue.

Marijuana was very nearly decriminalized at the federal level in the late 70's (until Stroup screwed up on a personal level). We have not learned anything new about marijuana in the past thirty years, yet policy has shifted from tolerance to crusade. Why is that? Is there any rational basis for it?

I think the answer has something to do with people that hate freedom. Many people do, but they won't admit it to themselves. They truly believe they are serving the interests of freedom by locking adults in cages, for nothing more than choosing to ingest the incorrect plant or chemical compound. The rationale is that, after all, drugs steal your mind and enslave it, so we are serving freedom by caging you and presumably preventing access to your plant or chemical of choice, freeing you from your TRUE captor. (In effect, this has a dubious level of success.)

Let's see, which situation do I enjoy more freedom in? One in which I have entered into a pitiful condition by willfully ingesting a dependency-forming substance; or in a socially funded jail cell or mandatory treatment, with my possessions and bank accounts stolen, my student aid revoked, my housing rescinded, my children removed, and with a permanent criminal record, on an offenders list, and perhaps no right to vote to change the injustice I've received?

To address the inevitable personal attacks, I make no secret of the fact that I imbibe in certain substances for recreational, medical and/or spiritual reasons. There is no reason to mention which substances, because there is no moral distinction between them, only artificial distinctions based on a superficial technical understanding of each and a heavy helping of general paranoia - and indignation toward anyone who would be so audacious as to temporarily alter their experience of life, and value this experience enough to place it above obeying the laws of man.

Life's short. Face it - ruining others' lives because they choose to experience it in a different fashion than you is indefensible. When someone has threatened or harmed you, they have wronged you. When you feel that someone *may* threaten or harm you based on nothing more than the way they conduct themselves, that is called paranoia. Seek help.

Or better yet, educate yourself. Sometimes the only way to understand your fellow man is to walk a mile in his shoes. But only do this if you are prepared for the revelation that you will receive. It may be staggering in its profundity, or it may be staggering in its triviality. To make this suggestion requires some amount of chutzpah, but think about it; a bunch of virgins regulating sex would be the height of absurdity, but we think nothing of taking this absurd approach when it comes to defining drug policy.

Isn't that odd?