I don’t disagree with your description of the inner cities – and it’s true of virtually every American urban center – but I am not sure what to make of your apparent belief that we should “let them kill each other”.

Are they somehow guilty by where they’re born?

Are they somehow not citizens by where they’re born?

Cut off the drug money, and the gangs cannot maintain their grip for long. Yes, the transition may be violent, but abandoning people to a cycle of poverty does not seem to be a .. noble option.

Mew

Regarding the understandable part of your post, many people have told you, above and below, that the War On Drugs is a #Fail. What we are doing isn’t working. None of those people are Paul supporters. None of them are anti-war.

You are demonstrating an incorrect understanding of the opposition to the War On Drugs, and that is leading you to some incorrect conclusions.

Mew

However, my experience elsewhere on the web and in person (my ex used to be a Paul-er-tarian, although she did come back to mainline conservatisim) shows that a large number of young libertarian-minded college students do not recognize the difference….

Between a real libertarian philosophy…

And a neo-confederate, feudalist revolutionary (Paul)…

Bringing them into the fold (rather than saying ‘We know you won’t vote for the other guy’ & leaving them be until they grow up) would bring in a whole lot of anti-FED, anti-war ash & trash alongside….

From the non-Libertarian conservative perspective, those are real big issues (unlike the WoD which is just another social cause among many)….

However, in most of our major cities, the gangs are actively protected by the community in which they operate – either out of fear, or because they are seen as part of the community, whereas the government is not.

It is the same problem we had with the Taliban and AQI – just on a more toned-down scale due to less potent weapons on both sides, and the generally civilized backdrop of American society vs the almost post-apocalyptic ‘Mad Max’ world of a post-regime Middle-Eastern/Central-Asian state…

Mew

This is where we get into a national security issue. Who is responsible for interdiction of illegal substances entering the U.S.?

Mew

Mew

2) The gangs are fueled by drug money and have the size and weapons to force themselves on the community. It would be easy for me to say in my nice suburb: “the local population that lets the gangs operate among them with impunity?”. A drug cartel/gang doesn’t operate outside my front door, my children don’t have to walk by them to get to school, my wife doesn’t walk by them on the way to work.

The War on Drugs has not reduced drug violence or drug crime. In the end, the only way to reduce the crime and violence is to reduce the number of drug addicts; that is a public health issue not a law enforcement issue. The problem with drugs has a law enforcement component, I don’t advocate total legalization, but we have ignored the public health component to our own peril.

This is a very strange argument.

Further, you’re making the argument here that the crime is kept to its’ own underclass, but you make the point below that the gang violence – fueled by drug money – is damaging to … neighborhoods of otherwise law abiding but poor citizens who can’t stand up because they’ll end up dead.

Seems to me it’s already spilling over, just not onto your suburban lawn. Every year of spill-over since Nancy Reagan’s “Just Say No” indicate, to this cat, that it may be time to try something else.

Mew

When you move to likely-voters, courting hardcore college libertarians costs us more social-conservative votes than it gains…

The GOP has always gotten along just fine with ‘Kids are stupid, we’ll pick ‘em up when they grow-up and wise-up’…

If it were JUST the war on drugs, I’d be less vehement about it…

But accommodating college-libertarians brings in pacifism, oddball economic theories, and folks who believe that law enforcement is here to oppress them, FEMA will put them in ‘camps’, etc… – which is a bridge-too-far into outright liberalisim, and kookery…

Now, that ‘brush’ doesn’t apply to ALL libertarians – there are quite a few (usually the ones who STAY libertarian as adults) who don’t have those things…

But the Paul Disease is so widespread among college kids who call themselves ‘Libertarian’, that we simply can’t take chances…

And as for the middle east, boots-on-the-ground is still the right way to get it done in most cases (especially now that Al Queda’s back is broken, there’s no ‘peace’ to win – you just give the dictator to his people & let nature take it’s course – although Obama is jeopardizing that by letting Al Queda fight Assad instead of the US Marines – if Assad falls before the US acts, AQ will have been handed a ‘do-over’), unfortunately W Bush let the MSM set the narrative on that subject…

Which is why the civilian population still says things like ‘support our troops, bring them home’ as if we’d rather play garrison-games than do our job… The war has actually improved the quality of the military by weeding out alot of the garrison boot-lickers (last ones left are crowding the E-8 and E-9 ranks), I-joined-for-free-college types, & such… Most of us who joined after 9/11 aren’t really looking forward to this whole ‘peace’ thing…

Just like the Taliban still exist because the people of Afganhistan tolerate them….

Like insurgents, organized crime can only operate if there’s a ‘sea’ of at least compliant, if not actively protective people to ‘swim in’….

No reduction in crime (drug criminals are career criminals, and don’t know how to do anything else but commit crimes )….

An increase in use and the attended ‘fallout’ damage…

Like I said, I can *almost* get to ‘meh, rather not, but whatever’ on pot – but only if the regulatory environment that replaces the ban keeps it confined to private homes with no children present, treats anyone who sells or provides to minors like they were distributing coke or meth, and treats driving-while-high as severely if not worse than DUI.

The point of the above argument, is that prohibition keeps the crime largely in it’s own separate underclass, with occasional flare-ups into law-abiding society…. Whereas legalization will unleash a horde of cash-starved criminal minds on the good people of America…

I’d rather have the small amount of spill-over/collateral-damage, than the impact of legalization on the law-abiding…

Of course, if you do legalize pot, you then have to regulate it for the same reasons we regulate tobacco-smoking PLUS the fact that it’s intoxicating…

While I’m personally opposed to legalizing pot from a give-an-inch-they-take-a-mile perspective…

I would be less opposed to decriminalization if:

1) It was still absolutely illegal to smoke it anywhere but your own private residence or a membership-only club formed for the exclusive purpose of pot-use (due to the fact that pot-smoke can be breathed by others who do not want to partake, whereas alcohol stays in the glass or bottle until you drink it & doesn’t spread itself around the room. Therefore, it should still be illegal to use pot in public places – including business-premises).

2) It was considered child-abuse to smoke it in the presence of minors.

3) It was explicitly legal for employers to test for, refuse to hire because of, and fire employees due to pot use, if they so desire (eg, no ‘wrongful termination’ suits for pissing hot even though the drug becomes legal.

4) At the time of legalization, forced-blood-draw laws were enacted (with telephone-warrant requirement, of course) for cases where an individual is suspected of driving-while-high. (Blood Draw is the only accurate scientific method to determine weather someone smoked immediately prior to operating a vehicle)…

5) Sales or provision to minors remains a crime, and is punished at the same level we currently punish drug dealers…

With that kind of regulatory framework, the only remaining issue is giving in and rewarding lawbreaking with legalization…

But that ‘environment’ would make me go from ‘Aw Hell No’ to ‘Nah, rather not’…

The decision isn’t entirely mine to make. It’s a decision that is to be made by “we the people”

If it is going to be legalized, then I think any potential risks to society should be identified, evaluated, and addressed.

Yes, laws similar to DWI laws could be used as mechanism to differentiate between substance use and substance abuse.

I wouldn’t be gung-ho over it, JSobieski, and I’m not going to pretend that i would be. But if the responsibilities side of it is addressed in a way that might prevent substance abuse and minimize societal risks…I could live with it.

Or does the use/abuse distinction mean nothing in terms of policy?

Yes, DWI type of laws could be utilized for any situations where abuse of substance might take place. Do you see any else making comments in thread identifying for the public what the risks of abuse might be in the case of pot? Or how it might be addressed?

More people then myself have had substance abuse touch their lives in one way or another, and there are very people I know who would describe it as being a positive experience. You think they wouldn’t be concerned about in this situation as well? Sure they would be. So, address whatever concerns they might have with the responsibilities side of legalizing pot.

Palin’s situation is something that I would describe as substance use, not substance abuse. I keep saying over and over again that there is a difference between the two, but that point doesn’t seem to be coming across.

What if I responded to an argument yuo made for tax cuts with an argument about the responsibilities of tax payers to care for others? To be responsible for their communities?

I don’t see you addressing the point of having laws treat similar things in a vastly different manner. Nor did I see a willingness on your part to apply accountability to people you like (Sarah Palin),

The best way to test a position is to apply the same logic to something else—to integrate that position into a broader universe.

Lack of popularity doesn’t make something wrong. I have been on the unpopular side of tax simplification, regulatory reform, and entitlement reform all of my life.

Its interesting to me how the US Constitution is never mentioned in some contexts, and repeatedly mentioned in others. Either people believe in a limited government where government bears the burden of showing a valid basis for law, or people don’t embrace that view.

Would you argue “responsibility” in the context of the First Amendment? The Second?