I don't really read his blog that often but sometimes the author posts something of interest like this article about John Stossel asking Paul Chabot, a candidate for California State Assembly, about the constitutionality of the drug war.
Mr. Chabot of course fails to respond.
Here is a quote from the blog I wanted to share with you:
"....to make alcohol illegal the government needed a Constitutional amendment. Prohibition was passed, failed and repealed................where [does] the government get its power to wage a war on drugs..."
On a related topic, current drug "czar" and former Seattle Police chief, Gil Kerlikowske, did a radio interview in which he stated:
"legalization is off the charts when it comes to discussion, from my viewpoint...legalization vocabulary doesn't exist for me and it was made clear that it doesn't exist in President Obama's vocabulary....[marijuana is] a dangerous drug.....we will wait for evidence on whether smoked marijuana has any medicinal benefits - those aren't in."
He has also stated that the administration would not longer use the term War on Drugs because it is counter-productive. Which sounds promising. However, he stated it was counter productive because it denotes favoritism of treatment over incarceration.
Layman's terms? The Obama administration prefers drug users be jailed instead of treated.
Yeah, that's going to fix the problem. Just like the 18th Amendment fixed the liquor problem.
Just goes to show you that no matter what people say about studying history, those in charge do NOT learn from it.