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.

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.

No, it was not. If I have a religion, it is ending the drug "war." (Did you read the link to my post about prison and the drug war at Glenn's old blog site?) And I'll bet I know more about that abomination than you do, and have been in the trenches fighting against it most of my adult life; I'm 51. But if we are going to continue to imprison non-violent drug offenders, a minimal improvement would be to not incarcerate them with depraved and violent offenders.

For Californians like me, the "Reagan Era" began at a minute past midnight January 2, 1967, when Ronald Reagan was ingurated as Governor at a time selected by Nancy's astrologer (according to wags). And he most certainly did "close the mental hospitals" in California beginning almost as soon as he got into the Corner Office. His reputation is for closing the mental hospitals is derived from his actions as Governor, not so much as President.

But Reagan's haigiography largely ignores his Gubernatorial interlude. It isn't exactly forgotten, it is just overlooked.

Welcome back, jonathan/Jonathan Hogue!

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.. ;-)

I'm not going to get into specifics, but you could not come from my family without having intimate knowledge of snake pits like Creedmoor, psychiatric barbarism, as well as the shortcomings of more contemporary insurance policies and the community mental health system. You also would know that these issues preceded the Reagan presidency.

What is the primary defining characteristic of a police state?

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

L.W.M

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.

Actually, it does. But you have to read it. Key to understanding it is some concept of the narrow area of acceptable political positions in American politics and why that occurs and some understanding of the Overton Window and how far to the right it has shifted. With the exception of 4 or 5 federal level politicians, 99% in the Democratic party are moderate conservatives. That means the GOP is populated by conservatives who are not moderate or centrist, to say the least. Then there is Ron Paul. Ron Paul is so conservative he is an anomaly but if you are claiming you don't understand the difference between Dennis Kucinich, Bernie Sanders and Ron Paul, I'd have to say you were being intentionally obtuse and disingenous. Ron Paul's ideas on ending the drug war wouldn't be pretty. He's not likely to approach it sensibly like the Dutch. He's anti-state and an Austrian economist. Kucinich or Sanders would.

Don't join the Prohibition Party. They are alive and well and the oldest third party still in continuous existence.

http://www.prohibition.org/

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.

Assuming arguendo this is true, SFW? Your tirade (which provoked my response) was against "lib'ruls". Not "federal level politicians". And you ignore the other stuff I said.

Now I agree with you on our draconian drug laws. As does Mona (as by proxy then, does Glenn). And probably many around here. Don't be an a$$ and get eveyone here ticked off because we're not discussing your crisis du jour today. There's plenty enough to go around, and if we can all manage to stick together about all the things that should concern us, and work on them, maybe we'll get somewhere with them, eh?

FYI, I'd note that pretty much every major blogger, from Atrios to Glenn and on, has to deal with complaints from people that they aren't paying enough attention to that person's particular interest. That's just the way it is, and the response from the bloggers is pretty much the same as well. If you feel very strongly about something, the Internet is a wonderful place for you to start your own blog, and you can slant it or hone it any way you like. And if you have something worthwhile listening to, you will be appreciated by those that do. Win-win all around.

Cheers,

I always enjoyed your posts and I share your passion about the US' unconscionable incarceration rates. I'm really glad you're back.

'Yes' to the first two: recognizable style and content.

'No' to the third. ;-)

[anonymous]: Aycharaych

Welcome back, jonathan/Jonathan Hogue!

I was thinking it stood for "His Royal Highness". ;-)

Disclaimer: I'm far from a tee-totaler (but it's barely evening out here).

Cheers,