As a fan of Tom Tancredo, I find it very disappointing to hear him advocating for the legalization of drugs. One expects this kind of thing from liberals but when a conservative starts promoting government approval and regulation of dangerous substances, something is very wrong. In the words of former Senator Patrick Moynihan, by attempting to “define deviancy down” Tancredo may indeed be committing political suicide, and, while that would be regrettable, it wouldn’t compare to the negative consequences such a foolish policy would have on our society.

Certainly, the so-called war against drugs has not been overly successful. While hundreds of millions of dollars are spent on arresting and incarcerating drug dealers and users every year, the demand seems to continue to rise—along with the influence of criminal groups like the Mexican drug cartels. So, why not save that money and allow government to tax and make a profit from the drug trade by legalizing it, like alcohol?

In the first place, while government surely spends a lot of money on drug crimes, I’m not sure such efforts could truly be characterized as a concerted “war on drugs.” Rather than a war, the effort against drugs in the U.S. is more like a disjointed, uncoordinated, hit-or-miss endeavor run by the Keystone Cops. In fact, since Bill Bennett was drug czar under George H.W Bush, I can’t recall a serious attempt being made by the federal government in this arena. While every president since then has had a drug czar, does anyone believe a strong anti-drug policy was pursued by “I didn’t inhale” Bill Clinton? George Bush was obviously preoccupied by the war in Iraq, and does anyone think that fighting drugs is one of Obama’s priorities? In short, there hasn’t been a serious effort to fight drugs in this country for over 20 years, so despite the money being spent it’s a misnomer to call it a “war.” Instead of throwing in the towel on this non-war, perhaps Mr. Tancredo should advocate for a true national engagement on this issue.

The social cost of legalizing drugs on our society would also be immense—and likely end up costing us even more than it is now—and not just in dollars. Whatever the government legalizes receives de facto moral approval. It sends the message, as with abortion, that it is ethically okay, which only serves to encourage the practice. Before abortion was legalized in this country, abortions ranged in the thousands. Afterward, it averaged over a million a year. Legalizing drugs would have the same effect. Instead of millions, it’s likely that tens of millions would become users. Having smoked “weed” in my youth (a fact of which I am not proud), I know that it can have a very negative impact on an individual, distorting one’s thinking and creating a “dead-headed” outlook on life characterized by loopy passivity. Do we really want to have a nation full of lazy, empty-headed “stoners,” smoking grass and having no qualms about it? Another side effect of marijuana is a sense of paranoia that is heightened by the fact that it is illegal, which is a good thing. It’s an incentive to stop. Diminishing that sense of guilt and fear of being caught does nothing but encourage more drug use, which is another reason to oppose legalization.

Marijuana—as everyone who has used it knows—is a “gateway drug.” A seemingly innocuous (initially) way of getting high, it almost inevitably leads to greater drug use. Since all drugs have a diminishing return over time it takes more and more to get the same sense of euphoria, leading to smoking more and/ or seeking stronger weed. That quest usually doesn’t end with marijuana. It commonly leads to using things like hashish, peyote, ecstasy, crystal “meth” or cocaine, which in turn may lead to the use of hallucinogenics, like mescaline and LSD—and even heroin. The truth is, if we are going to legalize marijuana, we will ultimately have to do the same for all of these drugs. After all, the rationale will already be in place: just think of all the money the government can save/make! Along the way, we will continue to “define deviancy down” in our society, until virtually nothing is considered wrong anymore. Hey, if making drugs legal is good, what about prostitution?

Perhaps most disappointing about Tom Tancredo’s push (no pun intended) to legalize marijuana and other drugs is the immorality of the position, especially for a professing Christian. Unlike alcohol, which has food value and doesn’t necessarily cause drunkenness, drugs always impair one’s mind and distort one’s consciousness. That’s the only reason for using them. But they come at a high price, often impairing the user’s life, creating addicts who commit serious crimes to maintain their habit and destroying lives and families. While it doesn’t specifically mention drugs, the Bible condemns drunkenness and by extension all things that distort one’s ability to function with a clear mind and cause addiction. Such behavior is bad for the individual and unhealthy for society. Does Tom Tancredo really want to advocate for something so morally wrong and destructive to our nation? If so, his political future probably is over.

Item: A medical marijuana dispensary in South Lake Tahoe, California was raided recently by agents from the U.S. Drug Enforcement Agency and local and other federal authorities. Another day, another reminder that federalism is all but dead.

I’ll leave the facts behind this particular raid for courts to decide, but I’m skeptical. I am reminded of U.S. Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas’s stellar dissent from a six-to-three decision in June 2005 in another California medical marijuana case, Gonzales v. Raich. In that case, marijuana was grown for their own use by seriously ill persons. It was never bought nor sold, and it was never carried across a state line. Nevertheless, it was found to be banned by federal law under a bizarre construction of the “commerce” and “necessary and proper” clauses of the U.S. Constitution.

Further, it made no difference that the citizens of California had decided in a referendum to permit medical use of marijuana.

Concluding his 18-page dissent, J. Thomas said, “The [Court] majority prevents States like California from devising drug policies that they have concluded provide much-needed respite to the seriously ill. The majority’s rush to embrace federal power ‘is especially unfortunate given the importance of showing respect for the sovereign States that comprise our Union.’ Our federalist system, properly understood, allows California and a growing number of other States to decide for themselves how to safeguard the health and welfare of their citizens.” (Citation omitted.)

Hastening the end of federalism is just one pernicious result – collateral damage – from America’s so-called War on Drugs. Just like Prohibition (of alcohol) 90 years ago, criminal profits have led to widespread corruption in our own country. (How, for instance, does one think a typical imprisoned criminal can get any drug he wants just about any time he wants it? Answer: bought guards.)

Drug-using Americans’ money in the hands of narco-traffickers has created damage immediately south of our southern border that goes far beyond tragic; it’s terrifying. Former U.S. House Speaker Newt Gingrich put it this way: "We have to rethink our entire strategy for working with Mexico. The war that’s under way in Mexico is an enormous national security threat to the U.S. If we allow the drug dealers to win we will have a nightmare on our southern border and no amount of fence and no amount of national security would compensate for the collapse of Mexico."

Many illicit drugs are bad stuff. But suppression of liberty is bad stuff, too. Alcohol Prohibition was doomed from the get-go because too many Americans wouldn’t lay off booze. It has been clear for a long time that, to the extent it relies on prohibition, the Drug War is a failure for the same reason. It’s a failure writ many tens of times larger than alcohol Prohibition.

I once lost the chairmanship of the Republican Party of New Mexico because some in that party deemed impermissible having the open and serious debate about drug policy that the Republican governor and I advocated. Decriminalization or legalization was simply off the table, as if (alcohol) Prohibition and its repeal had never happened. Some minor law changes designed for the governor by a task force that included a prominent federal judge and several others from law enforcement sent the state’s senior U.S. senator and some other party big-wigs into a conniption.

The ensuing hypocrisy was breathtaking. For example, the state’s two Republican U.S. representatives issued a statement saying, “While we agree that Mr. Dendahl has done good work for our party and has been a warrior for many of the party’s principles, he simply has broken faith with the party in this matter …” But when U.S. Sen. James Jeffords (R-Vt.) switched parties less than three months later and handed control of the U.S. Senate to the Democrats, one of those same two GOP congressmen unctuously opined, “He made a decision of conscience and you have to respect that. The party is big enough to reflect different views.”

Well, maybe not. But it had better learn to be.