Sell me on your candidate.

[America First]

I'm curious as to how your social score is essentially dead-center. What left or left-leaning social positions do you have? I've never seen one posted.

I'm pro-life and anti-immigration and I'm -7.  One or two questions don't effect the outcome very much apparently.

[America First]

I'm wondering, what exactly are your issues with Paul?  It would seem you match up best with him.

[America First]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Strongly disagree with his drug policy, and I believe the military should not be cut before unconstitutional domestic agencies are cut, and I strongly disagree with his policies on marriage.

Fiscally though, Paul and I have quite a few similarities. He's closer than Santorum, fwiw.

Have you studied the effect of drug decriminalization on drug use in the Netherlands and Portugal?  Not only has our Drug Prohibition failed, but the empirical evidence shows that decriminalizing drugs leads to less drug use, as well as (obviously) less crime.

[America First]

Yes, I have, and that fails to take into account demographic effects lowering the proportion of young men in both the Netherlands and Portugal. Yes, the crime rate is down, but other jurisdictions without this policy in the west have also seen across the board reductions in the overall crime rate as a ratio of the population.

What then is your argument for drug prohibition?  I just don't see any advantages of the policy.

[America First]

Drug trafficking is harmful to people and neighbourhoods where it occurs.  

If drugs were legalized, that harmful activity would dissipate and the quality of life in those neighborhoods would improve.  I think that just strengthens the legalization case.

Prohibition turns free markets into black markets.  It happened with alcohol and now it's happening with other drugs.

[America First]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

The harms of drug trafficking are intrinsic not extrinsic.

So you're speaking of drug use, not drug trafficking?  If drugs were legal, there would be no significant drug trafficking business.  Either way, legalization has been shown to decrease drug use, something our expensive War on Drugs hasn't.

[America First]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

OK now we're onto something.  You're comparing post-legalization drug traffickers to moonshine sellers.  How big of a market do underground moonshine salesmen get?  Answer that question, and that is the kind of market that you will see with underground drug salesmen.  Think of the analogy like this:
The Al Capone bootlegger era is to today's post-prohibition moonshiners as the Drug Prohibition era is to the future's post-legalization underground drug traffickers.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

See: Moonshine example.  How many gangsters traffic moonshine?  Very few, cause it isn't a big enough market due to alcohol being legal.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Then why does the empirical evidence show the opposite?

[America First]

What empirical evidence to support your position have you provided?

Those 2 countries over there in yonder Europe

[America First]

That won't actually end the war on drugs, it will simply shift to attacking unlicensed sellers and distributors.

The government has more important things to be doing than attacking drug salesman.  It's funny how "conservatives" get all offended of the government trying to make healthcare affordable, but then you want the government telling you what you can and can't buy for recreational use.

[America First]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Saying "Things are good in Netherlands" isn't empirical evidence.

Actually, it's exactly empirical evidence.

Empirical evidence - the record of one's direct observations or experiences

[America First]

Two, regulation of the distribution of controlled substances is a constitutional power of the federal government. It's that pesky constitution again.

I hope you realize that there was no such thing as "controlled substances" when the constitution was written.  There was no drug war until the 1900s.

It's fine if you want to waste more government resources on a complete and absolute failure that doesn't even accomplish its mission, but don't try to make the argument that the Constitution encourages it.

[America First]

One, no, they don't. Prosecution of independent sellers is a significant revenue stream, and given the constraints on goverment, all revenue is a big deal.

Once again, moonshine example.  How many resources does the government devote towards cracking down on independent moonshine sellers?  How about black market tobacco salesman?

[America First]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

When did I ever say there was a right to unregulated distribution?  All I said is that if drugs were legal, not many people would willfully break the law for it to make a difference, hence why there's no huge moonshine or tobacco crackdowns.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

You implied that the Constitution favors the War on Drugs, and I just told you that it doesn't.  It's not like I was making a constitutional argument in favor of abolishing the War on Drugs myself, so this whole argument and discussion is moot and simply a sidetrack.  I'm not sure where in the Constitution you're referring to, but it doesn't even pertain to this discussion so I don't care.

I'm not trying to make a legal/constitutional, or even philosophical argument.  I'm keeping things purely pragmatic.

[America First]

It's pretty obvious that the feds spending resources to bust marijuana collectives that places like Oakland are taxing is a net loss to the governments.

Not to all people

[America First]

Then you concede an important point that the government has a constitutional ability to regulate the distribution.

It's not an important point at all.  The government has a constitutional ability to ban water and table salt.  That doesn't mean they should do it.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Circular logic

You must be logged in to read this quote.

They have the constitutional ability to do a lot of things but that doesn't mean they should.  I like water.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

By your flawed logic, the constitution then favors banning water.  My argument is that the government has the power to do so but should make the choice not to for pragmatic purposes, such as crime reduction, saving money, and (although I'm not arguing this cause it's more philosophical) personal freedom.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I never engaged you in the argument over that point, so don't act like you've won anything.  The Drug War may be permitted by the Constitution, but it's not in our best interest.  That has been my position from the beginning, and you keep trying to deflect away from that.

[America First]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

So if something isn't necessary to live, our government response should be to ban it and waste all our tax dollars enforcing it and propping up gangs by doing so?

You must be logged in to read this quote.

What's your point?  A lot of things only have entertainment value, some of them dangerous.  However, persisting to use the same failed big govenrnmnt solutions to these things isn't the way.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Anytime someone says "terrible argument", it usually means they have no counterargument.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Pragmatic = it's not in the country's best interest.  The country would be better without a Drug War than with one.  Even if drugs were the worst thing ever, Prohibition hasn't stopped them from being used, and it also wastes money basically swinging at windmills, at the same time leading to way more organized crime.