There has been much ado about losses the Republican Party is expected
to take this upcoming election cycle. There is one angle which the GOP
could take with which they’d be likely to continue to control both
houses of congress: Changing their position on the drug war.

They won't. That would mean *reducing the size and power of
government...

So true. You would think that after taking power after the 1994 election we
would have decreased the size of the federal government at least one year. I
suppose the idea of small government is dead. The Republicans are no better
than the Democrats.

So true. You would think that after taking power after the 1994
election we would have decreased the size of the federal government at
least one year. I suppose the idea of small government is dead. The
Republicans are no better than the Democrats.

<rhinestoneau@yahoo.com.au> wrote in message

Those right-wing "drugs are really evil, mmmkay" powermongering
control-freaks are the poster children for abortion...

And, as R&R labels it ever so succintly, WITHOUT apology.

Besides, who in their right mind would want some lunatic telling them
what medicines they are allowed to take.

There is NOTHING wrong with opiates. AT ALL. They are painkilling
narcotic drugs. Yes, they are drugs of habit and dependence, and yes,
they can cause problems. Alcohol does that too, to a FAR greater
extent. But this senseless war on drugs does nothing but create even
more problems. Putting drug users in prison only escalates their
hatred against buttinsky control freaks. It just makes the problem so
much harder to deal with. As a result society believe the lie they've
been told. But people are waking up....slowly but ever so surely.

You would have thought the government got over themselves and their
self-righteous bigotry when Roe vs Wade legalised abortion in '73 and
the various laws allowing homosexuals to be free from discrimination.

I guess the government still has some, ehem *cough cough* rather
painful lessons to learn. Drug users should be protected from
employment discrimination and/or dismissal UNLESS their drug use
seriously interferes with their work performance, just as happens now
with alcoholics.

If said drugs eventually become legal (and mind you they most
certainly WILL when the American populace suddenly get tired of this
mindless and hateful war on drug users) and YOU choose to use drugs
and become addicted then YOU pay for it, it's YOUR problem, NOT the
governments, NOT anyone elses, NOBODY else's business, but YOURS.
Nobody has any obligation to subsidise drug addicts, and nobody has
any right to punish addicts for using substances UNLESS those
substances are causing severe psychosis (as occurs with some
hallucinogens) resulting in the committing of violent crimes (occurs
frequently as a result of various drugs which are known to be
extremely harmful to users and society at large and those drugs SHOULD be illegal for that very reason).

Heroin and marijuana, on the other hand, if taken orally, are about
as safe as houses, and if used habitually, are no more addictive than
cigarettes and are a whole lot less harmful than cigarettes because
one does not need to smoke them and run the risk of having their lungs rot.

You forgot to mention the revenue the government could acquire by
taxing drugs. As an example, the UK government collects 10 billion per
year through tobacco taxes. Instead of squandering billions in
pursuing drug users, the US could collect billions from them.