FK>  While being "soft on drugs" may be attacked as a "liberal" trait,
 FK>  this issue doesn't seem to divide on "liberal"/"conservative" lines.
 FK>  After all, don't "conservatives" want to keep government out of
 FK>  private affairs, and within the powers granted it 
 FK> by the Constitution?
 FK>  Seeing a failed policy for what it is _shouldn't_ 
 FK> be a partisan issue.
     
     I've got a little different spin to put on this question.  Sure, the 
"conservatives" are calling for less government, but not consistently.  Less 
welfare spending, less burdensom environmental regulation, less interference 
from govt on worker safety issues, but MORE government spending for police 
and prisons, for persecuting persons not conforming on lifestyle issues like 
sex and drugs.  So, while claiming a libertarian (or classical liberal) 
position on some things, the conservatives return to form with regard to the 
others.  Furthermore, the things which inspire them to a classical liberal 
position are those which became a part of liberalism during the 
administration of FDR.  The "positive rights," or "positive freedoms" (from 
poverty, from illness, from insufficient education), which FDR made part of 
his Four Freedoms, continue to irk the conservatives 60 years later.  And one 
of the reasons, then and now, is money.  AFDC and Food Stamps are expensive, 
and taxes are no fun.
     But liberals, today, though fewer in number, are still in favor of those 
positive rights.  Unfortunately, they seem incapable of applying their 
liberalism to the drug war.  Perhaps its too politically risky?  The most 
disheartening liberal commentary on this issue, IMO, came from then-governor 
Mario Cuomo on Larry King Live.  Mr. King, who supports legalizing drugs, 
brought up this issue with his friend Mario who was appearing on his tv show 
serveral years ago.  The governor, responding to Mr. King's observation that 
several prominent Republicans (Buckley, George Schultz, Milton Friedman [is 
he a Repub?], advocated legalizing drugs, fiercely attacked those 
conservatives for "caring more about dollars than about people."  His 
argument was that while the drug war *is* expensive, it is worth it because 
its aim is to reduce the suffering of people from the scourge of drug abuse.  
While it is easy to believe that Mr. Cuomo was truly ignorant of the fact 
that the war on drugs greatly increases human suffering, especially among the 
poor, in many ways both here and abroad, it is also easy to believe that he 
was merely exploiting an opportunity to hammer Republicans for their 
politically incorrect views.  Note the way he made the point that the Repubs 
"care more about dollars than about people."  In light of the Repubs' 
consistent opposition to those positive rights mentioned above, this was a 
hatchet job almost too good to pass up.  (Not all Repubs opposed; there used 
to be such a thing as liberal Republicans.)  I prefer to think Cuomo was 
merely ignorant; its hard to imagine a true liberal adopting a position 
guaranteeing greater suffering to poor people merely for the pleasure of 
calling Republicans tight-fisted on national tv.
     So, the spin is this:  legalizing dope *is* a liberal position, because 
at bottom is rests, IMO, on the right of individuals to pursue happiness as 
they themselves define it.  This is a classical liberal position.  It is 
also, happily, one which may appeal to fiscal conservatives, since 
prohibition is hellishly costly.  Unfortunately, the temptation among most 
conservatives is to let their "social conservatism" overrule their money 
sense (undermining Cuomo's view).  So, while it is a muddle, I believe 
liberalism is the strongest argument against the war on drugs.  (Too bad that 
is a liability these days, when Liberalism is a four-letter-word.)
  
     While expectations and hope may be misaligned on this issue, I honestly 
believe that the next decade or two offers a real opportunity for serious 
consideration of this issue by our fellow citizens.  For one thing, the 
boomers are coming of age.  And while many of us have been seduced into a 
hard-nosed intolerance, some of it religiously inspired, I believe that there 
is still a love of freedom and sensibleness among most of us.  Further, I 
believe that there is a likelihood that strong politi- 
cal leadership can break down that intolerance by merely calling it into 
question.  Where is that leadership going to come from?  I haven't given up 
on Bill, our first Boomer president.  But even if it isn't him, the times, 
they are a-changin'.  CA and AZ demonstrated that.
--- Maximus 2.01wb
---------------