It's a hard sell. Even if someone agrees with the position, the job isn't done. It's like selling someone on becoming a salesman. Even if you convince them to become a salesman, they don't make you any money until they actually sell something.
Since most people don't use illegal drugs, they don't care, at least not enough. They can't see how the illegality of a harmful substance from which they personally get no benefit is a bad thing. So they don't call congressman, write letters, or hire lobbyists. And most politicians see the legalizing of drugs as a non-starter.
A top down approach would seem to be the type of federalism Rudy is proposing. (On the issues he seems to be very close to being a Liberal Capitalist.) Unfortunately, the executive branch regulates all illegal drug use through the Interstate Commerce Clause, and that was upheld by the formerly liberal supreme court when a California resident was charged with possession of Marijuana. This in spite of the fact she was undergoing chemotherapy, it was for medical use, it was grown and used in California. At no time did it cross any state lines. Blah. (It's a double problem. The Republicans are anti-drug, and the Democrats are in favor of more power for the federal government.)
Even if a drug tolerant president were elected, he could only reduce enforcement during his term or terms. Once a war on drugs proponent was back in office, the foolishness would resume.
So, this is a problem that, at the federal level, would have to be solved by Congress. In the current climate, however, it's non negotiable.
At the state level, one might tally the amount of drug money confiscated each year by local law enforcement. I believe that money confiscated is kept by the local agencies. This is an incentive for agencies to "get tough" on drugs. Perhaps calling the state legislators and informing of the amounts of money confiscated and suggesting that it might be better put to use under state guidance might pull the money incentive from local police, and reduce the enforcement of current laws. Also, it would pull out of the picture the huge vested interest of fighting drug legalization that law enforcement has. Show me a thousand people who are in favor of drug legalization, and I'll show you every officer in every county, city, state, and federal jurisdiction that is against it. Every person employed by the DEA needs an agressive war on drugs to keep them paid.
Check out poor Eugene:
http://www.theagitator.com/archives/026505.phpWhat's the answer? A majority of legislators at every level that are Liberal Capitalists. New people with some very old but very good ideas.
-dave
Disclaimer: I make no guarantee of any factual data, grammatical correctness, or freedom from spelling errors in this post. Read at your own risk.
