Since the mainstream media likes their opinions in neat little sound bites, I’m proffering these talking points to anyone who wants to write letters to the editor, call into radio shows or appear on television:
The federal government is behaving like an invading force that is imposing its will on states and localities who have voted on their own laws.
The DEA have enough to do without the addition of enforcing federal laws that the voters have deemed unneccessary.
Targetting the sick and dying who are using medical marijuana under a doctor’s prescription is ludicrous and not compassionate in any sense.
Using the Commerce Clause as an excuse to deny patients to grow marijuana in their own home, because the practice may harm competitors (big pharma and ironically, drug traffickers), is the usual crutch for anti-federalists. And this clause is being abused in order to subjugate states’ rights (and voters) to federal control.
The federal government has failed to stem illicit drug use in the thirty years the War on Drugs has been going on.
Libertarians are in favor of a more reasoned and common sense approach to drug enforcement, with common advocated routes being taxation and limited regulation and standards of use on the state level much like tobacco and alcohol.
A reasoned approach would deal with addiction and use any tax revenue to encourage moderation instead of the current system of outright prohibition.
The U.S. government spends over $7.7 billion on enforcement when it could be making $6.4 billion in tax revenues. [Harvard Economist]
Personal responsibility and morality cannot be legislated and the War on Drugs (and previously, Prohibition) is a testament to the failure of trying to do so.
UPDATE: Stephen Gordon, who I met while on the Badnarik campaign, has written a good piece for LP.org:. Not over the top or hysterical, but a strong condemnation that would be great… if people payed attention to LP.org that is.