>My position on drugs is very conservative.
>
>I think a good conservative would rather let people live their own lives and run their own business without the government interfering, to a point. A good conservative also recognizes the value of piece-meal social engineering versus utopian social engineering (in other words, small, manageable steps towards goals that solve immedate problems and relieve immediate suffering, versus huge and risky steps at far off an usually unatainable ideals).
>
>For this reason I think that it would be in the best interest for the government to sell marijuana. Its 100% profit. Between how much money the US government could make selling this drug (which is always scientifically turning up to be much less of a health and social disturbance than alcohol) and how much money they could save by halting resources dedicated to deprive people from smoking this plant (which is always scientifically turning up to be less addictive and less determinatel to the health of society than tobacco) the federal budget deficeit would be nearly resolved and adult Americans would be given the freedom to choose whether or not they consume the plant.
>
>On the other hand, I stop short of recommending the same changes for cocaine, herion, and other drugs. I'm blasted by my liberal friends for this, but I believe its too risky, too much of a problem to put in front of the people all at once.
>
>That position is the most conservative I have seen, and sadly a balanced reasoned view such as this one is precisely what is lacking in today's politcal discourse. The reason is because it isn't an ideological position. Its a rational one.
>

I'm sure you believe it is a balanced view. I disagree. Having worked in narcotics and other areas of law enforcement, I've seen what the drug culture has done for people. Marijuanna is a gateway drug. True, it doesn't necessarily follow that a person who smokes it will go on to other drugs, but almost none of those who use harder drugs never used marijaunna first. Why should we add another problem to our society. We already have enough of a problem with alcohol and you are advocating adding another problem. It makes no sense.



>Now that you understand better where I'm coming from I will accept your apology for stereotyping me and I hope you accept mine for calling you a moron.
>

Well, I'll apologize for calling you a liberal if that makes you feel better. However, from my perspective, your position on drugs is a liberal one. As for calling me a moron, I thought you were saying you were a conservative moron!<vbg> Apology accepted. Truthfully, most people have some conservative and liberal tendencies, but will place themselves on the scale as one or the other. I choose to call myself a conservative.

>But, I won't apologize for calling you a tool, a casualty of a partisan ideology war that replaces critical thinking with spoon fed positions on issues.
>
>That's something you'll need to work at until you can shake it.

I don't like to be spoonfed. I analyze both sides of the argument and it just so happens my position lines up with the conservative position most of the time. I think it may have something to do with conservative positions are usually logical and liberal are usually all about how it makes them feel. We want results, they want to feel good about themselves, without regard to the outcome of a particular endeavor.