The question I asked was this: Can anyone here point to any federal level politicians of *either* party who are in favor of ending the War On (some) Drugs?

Your link did not speak to that question.

There are two such politicians in the US and I can name both of them.

Americans have lived with some drug prohibition for so long that it seems normal and right to them. But alcohol Prohibition was begun and ended in a mere thirteen years, both times by a Constitutional Amendment, something quite difficult to do.

The reason alcohol Prohibition was ended so quickly? People could look out in their own neighborhoods and see that Prohibition made the problems associated with alcohol consumption *worse* not better.

As it was with alcohol, so is it with other drugs, prohibition makes the problems associated with those drugs worse. But we cannot see that since we have all grown up with prohibition being a normal, everyday part of life.

The fish does not notice the water in which he swims.

We would not have the "Drug Mule" in the first place if it were not for the War On (some) Drugs.

There would be the some drug equivalent of the Budweiser delivery guy.

Your whole post was based on the premise that the War On (some) Drugs is right and proper. It's not your fault, we have grown up in that climate and know nothing different.

Liberals love to wring their hands and have giant puppet protests in the streets for dirty people in romantic sounding far away lands they intend to vacation in some day, while their own fellow citizens right here rot in squalor and crime and are incarcerated because lord knows, dem brown people sure do be scarey whens theys aks for a quarter.

Your pity comment notwithstanding, Tildeman is essentially correct.

There are only two federal level politicians in favor of ending the War On (some) Drugs and Mona has named both of them. It is quite telling that neither has a snowflake's chance in hell of winning the presidency.

So, where are all the "liberal" lawmakers who are in favor of maximum freedom for the maximum number of people?

Actions speak louder than words.

Sorry, it was your comment about "drug mule" that sent me off on that tangent.

I'm older than you and have been fighting this battle for a long time also..

You can find posts of mine on the usenet political newsgroups about this subject from twenty years ago.

Is my style *really* that easy to spot?

Or is it that my obsession is easy to spot?

Maybe I should start copying david sugarman.. ;-)

What is the primary defining characteristic of a police state?

I know what I think, I would like to know what you think..

I *expect* stupid and oppressive crap from conservatives, that is why I'm not a conservative.

I expect better from liberals and I'm not getting it.

And I did read the link given and I'm quite familiar with the Overton window and how it is manipulated.

I find it interesting that the fact that "the land of the free" has the highest incarceration rate on the planet is described as simply my "pet issue".

If that isn't the most important issue of our time I'm not sure what is.

And "I invented the internet" are two entirely different things.

In the first case Clinton actually said the words, it is an accurate and direct quote.

In the second case Gore never said what it has been claimed he said. The common perception is a complete distortion of Gore's actual words.

Please!!! This is utter idiocy! The KGB were atheists without any moral compass. Thus their victims were perfectly justified in fearing the worst would happen to them.

The official position of the CCCP was atheism, that does not mean that all Soviets were atheists or even all KGB members.

In contrast American interrogation techniques, no matter how enhanced, are clearly subject to strict moral limits and are thus in no way comparable.

And what "strict moral limits" would those be?

Many fraternity hazings involve dunking the pledges in water. This is in no way comparable to Torquemada as the pledges are perfectly aware there are strict limits on how far one is allowed to go.

You missed the biggest difference, frat pledges are willing participants in their hazing.

Not to mention that frat hazing deaths are not all that uncommon, so indeed they do go too far sometimes.

Torture sanctioned by the president and presidential contenders was the issue Anonymous Liberal wrote about. Figuring out the mostest will draw many opinions but provide little enlightenment about how to stop our current and future presidents from torturing.

As I already wrote, torture is torture is torture.

When we discuss torture why should we avoid discussing the torture that goes on in our own "justice" system?

Torture which is condoned not only by the President and Vice President but by practically every politician in America.

I know why domestic torture goes almost entirely unremarked upon, it is a bipartisan issue, an issue on which both liberals and conservatives agree for the most part.

And that is the horror of it, the ubiquitousness of the support for such a foul policy.