Exactly! Not only has the War on Drugs cost enormous amounts of money, increased the police state, and just generally had terrible effects on society, it hasn't even accomplished its intended goal of reducing drug use! The whole thing is just a huge failure, and the only people who refuse to acknowledge that fact are fundamentalist conservatives who desperately cling to the idea that drugs are evil and need to be banned because we need to legislate people's morality for some reason. It's not logical, it's not rational, and it's destroying our society.

Moral issues?

Driving under the influence is a legitimate issue, but it isn't a justifiable reason for making all drugs illegal. First off, simply being illegal does not stop drugs from being used, and second, there are ways of countering those who drive while intoxicated without banning the substance itself.

According to your argument, we should reinstate prohibition against alcohol because some people drive while drunk. Yet we've seen how that goes - under prohibition, crime becomes worse and the police state must enlarge itself in order to counter the increased crime that inherently goes along with it.

There are always trade-offs, but if your goal is to increase the overall safety of society and promote individual freedom, then the ending the war on drugs (i.e. prohibition) is only logical.

The more laws that exist, the harder it becomes to avoid breaking them. Even well-meaning citizens can inadvertently run afoul of the law. If things get bad enough, men can take no action without breaking some law. I once read a story about two guys who were arrested in U.S. customs after coming back from a vacation because they tried to bring back some lobster they caught while fishing. Is that the sort of society you want to live in?

You say that conservatives "want to legislate their morality". There are just a couple issues that come to my mind where "evil" conservatives would do that.

First to ban abortion. I cannot understand the problem with this since the most fundamental civil right is life. And life includes unborn, teens, adults and old people. The notion that killing a unborn person just because they can't object is no different than saying it's ok to kill a person who's 70 because they really can't "live a full life". If you want consistency, this is required.

The second most protested "moral" objection is legalization of drugs. Think about all these idiots on the road who can't concentrate on driving because of a text message being stoned and behind the wheel and getting a text message. It just may be self correcting as they kill themselves. The problem is all the innocent they will be taking with them. You'll reply that it should be their choice and that they will know better. You may be willing to roll those dice, but I won't be getting on the road with them.

Apart from those what "moral" issue do you have? I promise I won't be forcing you to go to church (and neither will any Christian I know).

Anything?
:

https://www.ncjrs.gov/App/Publications/a...
The abstrract: "The war on drugs costs the government more than the Commerce, Interior, and State departments combined. The drug war clogs the courts to the point of breakdown. It keeps more Americans in Federal prison for drug crimes than were in for all crimes put together in 1980. It criminalizes a generation of African-American men; this is the main reason a third of all black males in their 20s are under correctional control -- jail, prison, probation, or parole."
It goes on to say, despite all of this, drugs are more easily obtainable than ever.

Perot gave us Bill Clinton for two terms. I can't think of anything that harmed the nation more in that time frame. I don't want to start listing where that led, the list is too long, but a short list would include the Assault weapons ban, refusal to take Bin Laden when he was offered on a plate and throwing away the last of the Reagan budget surplus that set us up for the trillions of debt accrued in the 2000s under bush II. We almost got hung with clinton care and had not republicans taken the house in the mid terms we would have lost healthcare then.

I fail to see how the "little general" "helped" us.

The reason I posted the link was to show why Romney did not win. It was due to Republicans staying home and not voting because they didn't like the candidate choice.
I, personally, have done this compromise voting since I could vote on presidential elections. It hasn't worked. Millions of self proscribed Libertarians have done this compromise as well. I think we have been wrong. The only way to change the party platform so the establishment will listen is to leave it or not vote for it. This, of course, from the Libertarian perspective. A conservative's perspective is less compromised by voting for the mainstream rep candidate..There is nothing wrong with more parties in a race. In fact, Perot's success had a dramatic effect on Clinton's first term. (although it didn't last). We had the contract with america and enjoyed prosperity until Bush II came in and set policies in motion that began to unravel the economy. A Libertarian does not tolerate big government and policies that limit personal freedom. I have listened to you guys every political cycle and not been morally objective in such a personal and important right. My vote. If you gladly live with the compromise-fine, I respect your reasoning. But my reasoning is thoughtful and has merit as well. Maybe there would be fewer scandals (the NSA and IRS scandals would still be happening). Maybe an Ambassador and his team would be alive today and we'd actually have a department of justice. But not much else would have changed in the right direction-the cronyism and the spending into oblivion.

From your link "K"
*******************
I was pulling for Romney to win as much as the next guy. He may have turned out to be more of a squish like many Republicans in the House and Senate today, but it would have been a squish in the right direction.

However, note that the report says the 2012 drop-off to 58% was “concentrated among GOP-leaning white voters”. To me, this is just more proof that moderate squish candidates who lack the conviction of a true conservative candidate just isn’t going to cut it. We can’t win with a Romney because not enough of us will vote for a Romney. But we can win with a solid conservative candidate.

We need to keep this in mind in 2016 when we elect our primary candidate. Almost anyone would be better than Obama as president, but that is setting the bar too low. We need a good communicator and someone with strong core principles and appeal. I don’t know who that will be in 2016, but I can think of several candidates who I’d like to see in that spot.

But what I do know is we don’t need to pander to a bunch of ‘minority groups’ like we have in the past. We do need better outreach though to minority groups and the message needs to be universal, the message needs to be conservatism. It’s time to bring this country back together and a good conservative communicator can help begin the process.
********************

I don't disagree with anything the author said. Please tell me where he advised us that voting third party improved our odds of NOT electing Obama, or his successor?

Give me a guy who agrees with me on the fiscal side and a percentage of social issues and I'm going to anything in my power to get him elected over a socialist who wants to fundamentally transform our nation.

The process must be approached with reason. If you choose to either sit out an election OR vote third party and some leftist with delusions of grandeur is elected - no matter what your reason was, YOU lose. It's simple math.

If a person running agrees with 75% f what you support and the other guy agrees with you on 10%, and you are going to protest your vote by writing in a third party, you lose.

Not only do you throw away your vote on guy who will not be elected, but you just may cause the guy who opposes your core beliefs and you give him the power to make them illegal.

Dumb..

it was in here star. I can't remember his name though. But he was basically anti-capitalist. Maph is pro capitalist

So you think the police will be less overbearing if mj is legal? I think your dreaming.

For what it's worth, I personally have no problem with police. Not saying they are flawless because they are humans, but I haven't even had a ticket in 32 years. It is possible to have a life without police interaction - you don't break laws.

I didn't recall. Someone on one of the boards I visit was making all kinds of voting "suggestions" from your political direction a few months ago and it turned out they were from Canada. I don't remember who it was and that's why I asked like I did. No offense intended.

I agree wholeheartedly with the legalization of drugs. It emphasizes personal responsibility and removes a degree of coercive tools from the government. I've had to deal with the abuse of such in my family, but it's ultimately up to the individual, what to do with his life and body.

I've got some hopes pinned on Rand Paul, but he's going to have to get a lot busier over the next two years to even have a chance for the nomination. But the rest of the pool, at this point, are worrisome. The establishment Repubs, though have lost me completely. They're really digging in their heals against the Tea Party and libertarian ideas. I think they're ringing in their own death knells.

I agree he is a lousy presidential candidate. But I don't think he's a hack. There strong and convincing arguments for legalizing drugs. The war on them has made our situation worse and we all pay the price to the wrong enemy. Conservatives refuse to see that. They're willing to give up freedoms right and left to protect some cultural values that might change regardless. and they get openly hostile when you reasonably point that out. You can't even get half of them to acjnowledge the NSA is out of bounds. Sheesh.

It was interesting for me to look at Johnson's actions as governor of New Mexico. He vetoed far more bills than he approved. I like that attitude.

I don't like the man, because of his willingness to accept the more radical, but he has become more solid in his libertarian views, lately. But he's a bit of a moron when it comes to clearly expressing the application of his ideas and as far as a public debate, forget it.

Conservatives, IMHO, need to have a skivvy check and recognize their own brown streaks before I could ever think about voting for another one, even the least worst choice.

This is where I am. I voted for est and it told them nothing. They are as big govt thinking as ever. They have to lose before they get it. If you have new faces in the primaries and you can vet them pick them! No matter what your state might perceive in losing the power and connections of long timer. Few of them are working for the people anymore.
Im just worried candidates will call themselves the tea party candidate and not really be. That happened with themayor in my city. Ran on that and has turned out to be the usual tax and spender.

You 're flinging around lots of accusations here without thought. Romney didn't win because republicans stayed home.
http://therightscoop.com/report-2004-tur...
Libertarians want to see the rep platform move their direction. The only way to do that is to run candidates in elections to gain visability and get elected officials to pay attention. It moves the platform forward. If you think Romney would have gotten rid of obamacare- well youd be wrong. He would have been Bush lite and the same big govt policies would continue. Voting for a candidate simply as the lesser of evils isn't going to move the country forward. That's reason.

I think libertarians tend to be more linear in their thinking where laws are concerned. For instance judge napolitano would agree with a Johnson platform. Conservatives do not apply linear thinking to issues. They are for limited government but they are pro protection state and they want to legislate their morality. I do not see the occupy crowd supporting a libertarian. After all that group wants stuff for free and libertarians don't do handouts

We could say the same thing about alcohol, but that's not illegal.

Is marijuana a harmful substance? Most likely, yes. But is it more harmful than the overbearing police state and rampant crime which inevitably arises when it's made illegal? I doubt it...