Libertarian sees pro drugs everywhere...

The best thing about the tea party movement is its narrow focus. Out of control spending on ever expanding government is something that should cause concern for any responsible person. Once someone understands that just because the federal government can print money doesn’t mean that it can just pull it out of thin air without borrowing it from the future and correlates that with their own future and that of their family’s, an awakening occurs. There are certainly other interests within the tea party but a concern over big government is the cause that brings it together.

The reason why this is the best aspect is because with a singular focus the tea party can be more successful. Part of the reason that it exists outside the Republican Party is because the GOP, like the democrat party, is large and encompasses a ton of different ideas while trying to please everyone on everything. What that does is open up the dictionary to the other side to define the ideals of the other. Name calling and poorly thought out characterizations always follow, where a democrat will say something like “you’re a Republican so you think this” without any proof.

Similarly, if there is a movement with a positive reputation like the tea party; egotists who assume that everyone agrees with them project their personal views onto the movement. In a column on National Review Online, “The Tea Party and the Drug War” by Jeffrey A. Miron lectures that if the tea party believes in “its principles” then it must support the legalization of non-prescription drugs. Silly libertarian pot heads, they never stop do they? Miron paints the tea party group as election kingmakers and introduces his libertarian academic exercise on the benefits of legal drugs with:

voters will want to know where the (tea) party stands not just on the economy but on social issues. A perfect illustration is drug policy, where conservatives advocate continued prohibition but libertarians argue for legalization. Which way should the tea party lean when this issue arises?

If the party is true to its principles — fiscal responsibility, constitutionally limited government, and free markets — it must side with the libertarians.

The author does explain why in the perfect fantasy clean room of pure libertarian thought how fiscal responsibility, constitutionally limited government and free markets correlate with drug legalization. The problem is, as with most pure libertarian thought, that it is purely academic delusion. If there has ever been a society with at least three hundred million people that was able to thrive without crime, with liberty and fiscal responsibility with and because of legal drugs what is its name and where is it located?

Drugs ruin lives. And the ruinous culture of drug use cannot be only attributed to their prohibition. The war on drugs has been a losing fight for the most part but that does not mean that it is a fight not worth having. There is no proof that drug use is not restrained by prohibition nor is there that costs would lower if they were legal. Drugs hurt users and slowly ruin their lives. It is simply a fantasy of recreational drug use proponents that legalization will solve so many problems and not intensify them. It is sad that they never give up and that they fit any movement or argument to their favor in a display of narcissism.

The only argument that has ever made sense in regard to the legalization of drugs came from comedian Daniel Tosh:

I think we should legalize marijuana in this country, so potheads have nothing to talk about ever again.

The crux of the argument is that those who want to fasten their movements onto the tea party and define what they are from their own viewpoint should just stick to their own movement and accept that they just don’t have as much support as they think they should have.