Yes, there is such a right – it’s part of life, liberty, property, and the pursuit of happiness.

I already found the right – and discovered that prohibition appears to be a violation not only of the federal Constitution but most or all of the state Constitutions, meaning all such prohibitions are null and void and drugs are already constitutional. In addition, as no government can seize even by constitutional authority no one can disable the inalienable rights of man – drugs are legal throughout the world.

Even Utah recognizes the rights of life, liberty, property – and so far as I can find doesn’t delegate the power to regulate these to the state government, and even if it did the right would still exist.

“That’s never going to happen”

Not only did I discover my rights – I also control what I put into my body.

I would say that the economy will finally force the debate as to whether we can continue to afford said parasitic agencies…and more importantly, the policies they ‘administer’.

Cash-strapped States like California, facing fiscal Armageddon, are now contemplating the unthinkable: legalized and taxed cannabis. Other States may follow suit.

Just as happened before with alcohol Prohibition, drug prohibition’s rubber is meeting the fiscal road…and the rubber is going to be shredded against the rock-hard tarmac of the fiscal realities.

It’s already partially in place – there are parts of the country where cannabis, for example, is effectively legal but for Federal Government prohibition (CA, WA, OR, and so on); but parts where cannabis possession is a ticket to major jail and asset forfeiture (UT, TX, etc.).

Indicative of a larger problem, IMHO – the Federal Govt of these here United States has hugely overstepped its constitutional bounds and become a corrupt, bloated, parasitic (even predatory) borg. FEd expenditure needs to be cut in half, starting with the military, but also whole departments need to be eliminated – Education (reserved to the States), DEA, ONDCP, and other usurpatory authorities.

…the altogether nebulous term of ’socialism’…

Socialism is government interference in the economy. It ranges from Marxism, to Democratic Socialism, to the “mixed” economy. The people who most benefit from pretending that “socialism” doesn’t really mean anything are those collectivists who want to deny individuals the right to live their lives on their own terms.

…and nations purportedly capitalist in nature that have what frequently amounts to a police state…

Good thing you put in “purportedly” since the massive government interference in the economy (particularly from the New Deal onward) makes this country decidedly not free market. That being said, it has been more free than the rest of the world, so your crack about the US being a “police state” in direct defiance of the historical fact of gulags, killing fields, reeducation camps of communist countries (not history in Cuba, North Korea, Venezuela, China), as well as the nanny state tyranny of western Europe (UK being a startling example of disgusting police practices).

What has ruined the US is not the free market, but the War on Drugs, pushed by all political factions. Since the black market is a market, suppressing it is suppressing free market capitalism.

Sorry, Dave.

#22 Elliot

“Practicality” usually means the abandonment of principles. So what the hell good are principles if you don’t adhere to them in tough situations?

I’m not abandoning principles. I’m sacrificing practicality in favor of principles.

“But then, most people know I’m an unreasonable crusading ideologue who would sacrifice practicality in favor of principle…”

Anyone who believes that the stringent drug laws and overwhelming police power are somehow correlated with the altogether nebulous term of ‘socialism’ used by the right to describe everything from a public plan for heath care to actually obeying signed treaties,would do well to consider the many countries where this is not the case – say the Netherlands – and nations purportedly capitalist in nature that have what frequently amounts to a police state – like say the United States.

Hot For Teacher, Van Halen

Drug prohibition in the currently-constituted U.S. will never end.

It will take a revolution to end it.

Wow, I don’t think there’s a single post here that I disagree with. I might as well take the day off.

Not so fast.

“Practicality” usually means the abandonment of principles. So what the hell good are principles if you don’t adhere to them in tough situations?

Anyway, I fully expect that this Cato report to be ignored, as our drug warriors believe they’re fighting for “moral” reasons, and feel all collateral damage is justified by their “moral” intentions.

Nevertheless, I don’t believe regulating drugs is a legitimate government function either locally or nationally. But then, most people know I’m an unreasonable crusading ideologue who would sacrifice practicality in favor of principle to satisfy my fantasy vision of a utopian world wherein all people are free to engage in a never-ending orgy of sex and drugs. In fact, I think I may just tap into that as my first campaign promise.

Enough of that, and those States that remain recalcitrant on cannabis may find themselves in even worse economic straights than before.

Elitist? Perhaps. But not many welfare recipients become employers. And we need more employers than we do welfare recipients. And States that re-legalize cannabis will probably wind up with more of the former than the latter…

The other is that it’s obviously pretty easy to score, most people don’t want to and therefore don’t and there really doesn’t seem to be much hassle about the whole thing.

Which isn’t to say that The People – bless their black, flabby hearts – are suddenly going to come to their senses in 2010 or 2012. But let’s not pretend they voted for what they got, ‘kay?