XPost: alt.politics.republicans, alt.fan.rush-limbaugh, talk.politics.guns   
   XPost: alt.politics.marijuana   
   From: nowomr@protonmail.com   
      
   >alm.   
   >   
      
   What are rightist druggies going to do without free crackpipes?   
      
      
      
   For decades, the U.S. debate over drug legalization has pitted   
   conservatives on one side against libertarians and some liberals on the   
   other. A few conservatives have publicly opposed the drug war (e.g.,   
   National Review founder William F. Buckley Jr.), but most conservatives   
   either endorse it or sidestep the issue.   
      
   Yet vigorous opposition to the drug war should be a no-?brainer for   
   conservatives. Legalization would not only promote specific policy   
   objectives that are near and dear to conservative hearts, it is also   
   consistent with core principles that conservatives endorse in other   
   contexts.   
      
   Legalization would be beneficial in key aspects of the war on terror.   
   Afghanistan is the world leader in opium production, and this trade is   
   highly lucrative because U.S.-led prohibition drives the market   
   underground. The Taliban then earns substantial income by protecting opium   
   farmers and traffickers from law enforcement in exchange for a share of   
   the profits. U.S. eradication of opium fields also drives the hearts and   
   minds of Afghan farmers away from the U.S. and toward the Taliban.   
      
   [V]igorous opposition to the drug war should be a no-?brainer for   
   conservatives.   
      
   Legalization could also aid the war on terror by freeing immigration and   
   other border control resources to target terrorists and WMD rather than   
   the illegal drug trade. Under prohibition, moreover, terrorists piggyback   
   on the smuggling networks established by drug lords and more easily hide   
   in a sea of underground, cross-?border trafficking.   
      
   Legalizing drugs would support conservative opposition to gun control.   
   High violence rates in the U.S., and especially in Mexico, are due in part   
   to prohibition, which drives markets underground and leads to violent   
   resolution of disputes. With the reduced violence that would result from   
   legalization, advocates of gun control would find it harder to scare the   
   electorate into restrictive gun laws.   
      
   Legalization could ease conservative concerns over illegal immigration.   
   The wage differences between the United States and Latin America are a   
   major cause of the flow of illegal immigrants to the U.S., but an   
   exacerbating factor is the violence created by drug prohibition in Mexico   
   and other Latin American countries. With lower violence rates under   
   legalization, fewer residents of these countries would seek to immigrate   
   in the first place.   
      
   Beyond these specific issues, legalization is consistent with broad   
   conservative principles.   
      
   Prohibition is fiscally irresponsible. Its key goal is reduced drug use,   
   yet repeated studies find minimal impact on drug use. My just-?released   
   Cato Institute study shows that prohibition entails government expenditure   
   of more than $41 billion a year. At the same time, the government misses   
   out on about $47 billion in tax revenues that could be collected from   
   legalized drugs. The budgetary windfall from legalization would hardly   
   solve the country’s fiscal woes. Nevertheless, losing $88 billion in a   
   program that fails to attain its stated goal should be anathema to   
   conservatives.   
      
   Drug prohibition is hard to reconcile with constitutionally limited   
   government. The Constitution gives the federal government a few expressly   
   enumerated powers, with all others reserved to the states (or to the   
   people) under the 10th Amendment. None of the enumerated powers authorizes   
   Congress to outlaw specific products, only to regulate interstate   
   commerce. Thus, laws regulating interstate trade in drugs might pass   
   constitutional muster, but outright bans cannot. Indeed, when the United   
   States wanted to outlaw alcohol, it passed the 18th Amendment. The country   
   has never adopted such constitutional authorization for drug prohibition.   
      
   Drug prohibition is hopelessly inconsistent with allegiance to free   
   markets, which should mean that businesses can sell whatever products they   
   wish, even if the products could be dangerous. Prohibition is similarly   
   inconsistent with individual responsibility, which holds that individuals   
   can consume what they want — even if such behavior seems unwise — so long   
   as these actions do not harm others.   
      
   Yes, drugs can harm innocent third parties, but so can — and do — alcohol,   
   cars and many other legal products. Consistency demands treating drugs   
   like these other goods, which means keeping them legal while punishing   
   irresponsible use, such as driving under the influence.   
      
   Legalization would take drug control out government’s incompetent hands   
   and place it with churches, medical professionals, coaches, friends and   
   families. These are precisely the private institutions whose virtues   
   conservatives extol in other areas.   
      
   By supporting the legalization of drugs, conservatives might even help   
   themselves at the ballot box. Many voters find the conservative   
   combination of policies confusing at best, inconsistent and hypocritical   
   at worst. Because drug prohibition is utterly out of step with the rest of   
   the conservative agenda, abandoning it is a natural way to win the hearts   
   and minds of these voters.   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)