I must admit, I do not support the drug war as it currently stands

[mdmc]

I understand that there will always be a "drug war", as kids and criminals continue to want to use drugs and alcohol in a waay that society opposes.

We can run a better drug war by legalizing and regulating drugs and alcohol.

I dig seeing a candidate for president that feels the same way.

[BiggJawn]

1. Unfortunately,

The only one currently who thinks like that is that nutcase throw-back Ron Paul.

I still don't understand why the GOP allows a Libertarian to run for President.

[mdmc]

3. very true my friend..

[FarLeftFist]

2. Legalizing and regulating CERTAIN drugs.

Alot of that shit needs to stay illegal and taken off the streets IMHO.

[mdmc]

4. what is better left unregulated?

I'm interested in knowing where you, farleftfist , would draw the line.

[FarLeftFist]

5. Marijuana/Hashish should be legal but most others should be taken off the streets.

I guess mushrooms would be legal as well.

[BiggJawn]

6. Then the war goes on.

Some of this stuff, like Meth, "Spice", and so-called "Bath Salts" are responses to other drugs being made illegal. End the "War", and the demand for these crappy poisonous analogs disappears.

Leave them illegal, and the war goes ever on. "We have always been at war with Ecstasy..."

I say that drugs would self-regulate in much the same matter alcohol does, that is, people who cannot or will not moderate their use eventually remove themselves from the equation.

[FarLeftFist]

8. But why encourage it? Look how bad alcohol has been to society.

I'm not preaching, I too drink on occasion myself, but think of all the innocent people that have died because of alcohol alone.

[cthulu2016]

9. The failure to imprison people is not encouragement

Does society encourage communism by failing to ban books by Marx?

We, as a nation, now start with the frame that everything is presumptively illegal and thus decriminalizing a thing is an endorsement of it.

But our theory of law is, or is supposed to be, that all things are presumptively permited and that in a few cases things are banned (like murder, as the easiest example) because the bad effect on the public good is overwhelming.

Even when anti-drug laws exist the burden is still on the illegalization side. The burden of proof is on the law 24/7. Forever.

Or at least it is supposed to be.

[treestar]

7. Why not a gubernatorial candidate?

Or several state legislative candidates? Because that's what it would take.

The POTUS could be Ron Paul himself, and drugs would stay illegal.