If not, how can you support such a body of law morally? Also, if you don't support ending the war, how can you support the immoral War on Drugs when all available data indicates that the War on Drugs is ineffective -- not just at stamping out drug use, but at reducing it at all?
In the Land of the Free, is it not tragic that a human being could be locked in a jail cell for decades for a crime that involved no one else, and no one else's property?
(If you're going to argue that drugs lead to car crashes or child neglect, I reply to you that those things are already illegal. People do those things without drugs, anyhow. And to top it off, all data indicates that alcohol, PER USER, causes FAR MORE of these social ills than drugs. PER USER. End of story. It's a moral *tragedy*, and a practical failure. Of course, we're not supposed to do immoral things for practical ends... I believe a wise man once said something to the effect that in the Land of the Free, we ought not sacrifice an ounce of liberty for any amount of security -- and in this case we've sacrificed an enormous piece of liberty for NO INCREASE in security -- indeed, everything indicates the world is less secure when we provide true criminals such a profitable enterprise rather than allowing decent businessmen to sell their wares to law abiding free adults.)
What say you, prospective President of the Land of the Free? Will you make that title apt, once again? Will you at least work towards that goal?
I call on one particular candidate to respond explicitly, a candidate who had my support until I found out that despite admitting he'd committed these so-called "crimes", he still supports putting others in jail for this, implicitly at least, by his support of opening new DEA offices, offices which have no other purpose. (Of course, our current and previous President also used drugs yet supported this *immense* edifice of immoral anti-liberty known as the War on Drugs implicitly; then again, they were still in denial about their use, seemingly... I can't decide which is worse, recognition and actively choosing hypocritical immorality, and denial and actively choosing immorality?)
I also call on the editors to edit this question and remove the non-question parts and those that call out a particular candidate (I guess that need is obvious) if it's chosen, and I pray it is, as it's the most important question for this country in terms of human lives at stake. [E.g., stealing ten years from 10 drug "abusers" with a jail sentence is equivalent to a long, long life lost. Wanna tally up that death toll? How about the reduction in quality of life to people who otherwise would've been able to recover from any problems with drug use and become productive, or who would have just plain lived a life while using -- just like Joe Six-Pack has been doing quite well since the end of Alcohol Prohibition -- and who lost their ability to function in society to the stigma of criminal convictions and the psychological damage of being jailed with actual criminals? ]
I'll stand down, now. If we have to mention something tech related, I'll draw your attention to the iDose and ask for comments. (Just kidding.)