NH INSIDER

I've been spending a good bit of my spare time lately trying to speak with Republican presidential candidates about drug and marijuana policy, and for the most part it has been pretty frustrating.  (Yes, I plan to approach more Democrats soon.) In a nutshell, the top three "leading brand" Republicans (some call them "Rudy McRomney") appear to be hell-bent on prosecuting even terminally ill patients whose doctors recommend marijuana to make their last days more bearable.  Having met and spoken with a few of these patients, I can hardly stand to look such staunch prohibitionists in the face.

Unfortunately, since the election of Richard Nixon, the so-called "law and order" approach to the very real problems of drug abuse and addiction has prevailed among virtually all elected Republicans.  The problem is that while prohibitionism promises law and order, what it actually creates is lawlessness and disorder.  Conservatives often see people like me as standing up for a bunch of "druggies," when really we're trying to help create a saner, safer society and stop wasting taxpayer dollars on a socially destructive set of policies.

Conservative scholars such as Milton Friedman and William F. Buckley, Jr.,  have offered scathing criticisms of Drug Prohibition over the years, but obviously, there's a big difference between being a scholar and being a politician -- neither Friedman nor Buckley ever ran for office.  The only Republican politician I know of who has had a lengthy career in politics while consistently criticizing the federal Drug War is Congressman Ron Paul.  This Texas obstetrician has somehow managed to win ten elections in his conservative district despite being frank with his constituents about the failure of federal drug policies.

Fortunately, a growing number of Republican voters are beginning to share Dr. Paul's conclusions.  Many, like me, are survivors of the D.A.R.E propaganda machine who have learned to loathe Prohibition.  Like me, they are yearning for a fresh discussion of policy alternatives. 

My latest article for SendTheRightMessage.com features video of Dr. Paul answering drug and marijuana policy questions.  Like my last article featuring John McCain, it has generated tons of web traffic, and both articles are listed on the "US Elections 2008" front page at Digg.com.  There are more comments posted than I can possibly read.

The point of the article is not to endorse Ron Paul (although, from the anti-prohibitionist perspective, he may be the only Republican worth considering), but instead to engage a discussion about the future of the Republican Party in New Hampshire and across the United States.  The party's base has clearly shrunk, and many potential GOP members are also members of the D.A.R.E. generation who are tired of having their intelligence insulted by prohibitionist Republicans.  Yes, it's just one issue, but it's indicative of a much larger theme.

Forget about Ron Paul for a minute and think instead about his message and the support it receives.   Paul says the GOP has lost its way, and he advocates for a return to non-interventionist foreign policy, truly free trade (not the corporate-managed NAFTA version), and true personal liberty.  Paul points out that these were all Republican positions once upon a time.  I know several Paul supporters who have never even tried marijuana or other drugs but oppose Marijuana Prohibition based solely on philosophy, economics, and a basic understanding of what works and what doesn't.  The GOP would certainly like to include these people in its base of supporters, but will it tolerate their common sense ideas?

I suppose only time (and election results) will tell, but GOP leaders such as NH party boss Fergus Cullen would be foolish to continue insulting legislators who support marijuana policy reform.  Until that happens, anti-prohibitionists such as myself will continue to enjoy membership in what has become the largest political party in the state: the Independents.