Drew Carey is the host of "The Price is Right" and recently celebrated his 500th show. (Yes, Bob Barker retired.)

The protection of property is the primary purpose of government.  A human life is it's own property.  So your assumption would be wrong.  You can check Ron Paul's position on the matter for clarification.

Although passing a law that cannot be enforced is a law that shouldn't be created.  You can't keep a mother from killing her child.  No law will stop that.  That's the practicality of it.

is a personal freedom?  Like crack?  Powder?  Heroin?  WTH does that have to do with the difference between a Paulistinian and a conservative?  Shawn, I really thought better of  you.  That's really kind of a disconnected argumnet.  There a heck of lot more serious issues facing the US than the freedom to light up a dooby, and I'd really have qualms about someone that even brought that up. 

... shawn? You let down some person on the Internet that thought better of you. I'll help you legalize pot though, one bad trip that makes me say "I shouldn't of done that, man", at a time.

He has turned out to be a huge disappointment for me, too...

Huge.  :-(

"The problem is not that people are taxed too little...the problem is that government spends too much." ~President Ronald Reagan

and there'll be a chicken in every pot, or, is it pot in every chicken, and a car in every garage, because the government makes them?  And Ronpaul shall lead them. 

Or maybe your equation is closer to: no constraints + isolationism = loss? 

I have to agree with you both on this.  As an adult it is your responsibility to make an informed decision and accept the risks or not.  It is your life and for someone else to take away those choices for you demeans you.  But once you make the choice then you also need to accept the consequences.  (Unprotected sex, smoking, etc).

As for studies saying pot is a gateway drug those are about as reliable as the global warming ones.  (Not very!)  I've also read studies that show certain currently illegal drugs can have a benefical effects.

A nanny government is a nanny government whether it is telling you to fasten your seatbelt, not to smoke, etc.  Complaining about the parts of the nanny you don't agree with while saying others are fine is hypocritical.

You guys are also right in that the christian conservative aspects of conservatism do turn off independent and libertarian potential supporters. I don't smoke pot or visit prostitutes but I think those are both choices people should be able to make. Making them legal would also free up our police to help people who have actually been victimized.

The problem I have with the drug war is how it is fought.  You shouldn't be able to have a meth lab set up that causes harm to kids, to firemen who may have to rescue the kids when the house catches fire...etc.

Want to do drugs, then your welfare should be zero and any kids removed, and employer be allowed to fire you.  Other than that I am with you on the nanny state dictating what people can eat, how much water to use for their toilet, who must wear a seat belt, etc. 

As far as foreign policy, I'm somewhere in between "isolationism" and "interventionalism".  I think the US should not be in the United Nations and should remove it's troops from Korea, Germany and Japan, among other places.  I think NATO no longer serves any useful purpose and should be disbanded.  On the other hand, I do not object to waging war against a nation that harbors terrorists and does nothing to try and remove them.  I also do not object to waging war against a nation that is making threatening statements and developing weapons of mass destruction.

I think many conservatives are too dismissive of "blowback" being one of the causes of terrorist attacks.  However, I think many libertarians are too dismissive of Islamic resentment of the western way of life as a root cause of terrorist attacks.  

If you're not outraged at the media, you haven't been paying attention.

Kingfish:

I'd say the both Libertarians and Conservatives differ on social issues primarily.  Conservatives are comfortable using government to reinforce social mores and traditional values (believing that those are the underpins of America) whereas Libertarians oppose this (believing that individuals being allowed to choose for themselves are the underpins of America).

I would call Conservatives and Libertarians cousins-because they share a mother but have two very different daddies.

As for international issues-I think Conservatives have decided that "if you leave them alone, they still wind up coming over here" whereas Libertarians think pulling back behind our oceans will cut off the threat.

On that score-i believe Libertarians to be wrong.

My impression of a social liberal is one that wants to control other's behavior, based on what they believe to be the social good.  So a social liberal would have it be law that everyone must recycle, or everyone must insert a chip in their pets, or everyone must wear seat belts, or everyone must buy health insurance.

I always though libertarians would be against mandating behavioral norms in the name of some greater good. 

There is only one goddess Gaia and Al Gore is her prophet.

Should your financial advisor be able to snort a line before trading with your money? Should your doctor be allowed to "take the edge off" before putting the stent in your heart? How about your soldiers smoking a joint before clearing the next Afghan town? Your child's 3rd grade teacher; should she fire up a shot of heroin before teaching her science class? 

Technically, to all those questions, Yes. They can do it in the privacy of their own home (I'm personally still unsure if I support legalized crack or heroin) but when they show up to work under the influence they will probably get fired. Just like with alcohol, a doctor can "take the edge off" before performing a heart surgery, but I bet you he's going to get fired (and possibly sued if he messes up the patient) the second he shows up for work and starts operating.

the arguments about the gateway nature of marijuana are still evolving

You could say it's a "gateway" in the same fashion that alcohol and tobacco are gateways. Everyone starts somewhere and usually the less harmful drugs are used. But the idea that marijuana gives the user an intense urge to go straight to harder drugs is only applicable to a tiny portion of marijuana users. Studies have shown this not to be the case. The vast majority of marijuana users have not gone on to be regular users of hard drugs. 

It's used medicinally why? Does anyone know?

Because it has been clinically shown to effectively treat a number of health conditions.

you can become addicted

Yes you can become psychologically addicted, but not chemically addicted (unlike with alcohol and tobacco, among others). The "addiction" you can have to marijuana can be compared to the psychological addictions/dependencies many people have with many things. I could be psychologically addicted to (or dependent on) my girlfriend, or to Big Macs, or to chocolate, etc.  

studies (and police blotters) are showing a significant relationship between teenage drug use and adult criminality

Although this is not necessarily a "cause and effect" relationship because many people who are already likely to commit crimes are more likely to start using drugs in the first place; this is related to social class, background, etc. But on the other hand, there CAN be a "cause and effect" relationship to drug use and criminality because drugs are illegal! You can start using marijuana and you'll immediately be connected to the "business" and often there is a direct connection to harder, addictive drugs and much more money (if you're interested in selling). It's illegal nature is the very cause of it's connection to criminality. On top of that, there is the psychological factor of once you start doing one thing illegal and seen minimal harm (such as with pot use), you might be more likely to continue and be comfortable with other illegal behavior.

For all of you casual users; those of you who get their weed from the guy at work or from your brother, there are probably 100's who get there's from the junkie on the corner and risk robbery, or even life and limb during the transaction. And for teens, it's exponentially worse.

Correct. With any drug you are going to have your abusers. This is not always a "cause and effect" relationship either as there are plenty of people who were messing up their life before they started using drugs. But yes, you have plenty of abuse. But there is plenty of abuse with many, many legal substances. It is a tough argument to use the small percentage of abusers as making it a government-controlled criminal offense for all grown adults. That is where parenting comes into play. It should not the government's job to control private behavior. You also said there are "100s who get theirs from the junkie on the corner and risk robbery". Yes that is because its illegal and controlled by the black market. This is the cause for some of the sketchy environments the drug trade can lead to. Take it off the black market and the "trade" becomes somewhat of a "healthy" environment; well as healthy as your local liquor store or tobacco shop, that is :)

Finally, the legalize-and-tax argument is simply unrealistic. We see news items every day on the violence in Mexico. Most of this is marijuana-related (at least that's my understanding) and just what do you think these drug lords would do if the US suddenly legalized and regulated pot farms in America? Say, "oh well, it was good while it lasted. Looks like I'll have to get a real job now"? I don't think so.  And if you have a choice between buying some mild (junk) weed with a tax stamp for $20, or something that actually gets you high from the guy nobody is supposed to talk about for $15, where are you buying your weed? Besides, what true Libertarian would want to see big government controlling their entertainment.

This "violence" is due to the illegal nature. You can't call the cops if you're getting robbed. You ask what would most of these drug lords do? Well there would probably be quite a few who would go legal with their trade. Now they wouldn't have to depend on guns and violence because the law would be on their side. Your argument that even if it's legal, it would still be controlled by the "dangerous drug lords" is what's unrealistic. Many people are chompin' at the bit to go legal and there are many shops already in place (in the cities it's legal, and the medicinal ones) where business is booming. I mean technically, you could buy your vegetables off your neighbor who grows them and not pay taxes, etc., but the vast majority of the public is just going to buy theirs from the grocery store (and no, i do not support drugs or marijuana to be sold at the grocery store).

I understand the passion about this topic, and don't mean to create an NB drug war, but  for everyone who capably manages their casual pot use, there is someone else whosepersonal life, and that of their family has been ripped apart because of some sort of drug abuse. Not all of it is because of pot, no question, but more of it is than advocates like to admit.

I agree. It's a passionate issue to the millions of lives that have been altered by the drug war (users, law enforcement, lawyers, etc.). And there are definitely many lives and families ruined by drug abuse, no question. But to say "for every casual pot user.. there is a family/life ripped apart by drug abuse" is simply not true. That would mean 50% of pot users are casual, and the other 50% have had their lives and families ripped apart due to it's use. There are abusers of all kinds of behaviors, but I don't think that should mean we attempt to send all grown adults to jail who just USE and don't ABUSE. Prevention of abuse should start with parents and education, not the federal government and law enforcement.

I see your point when it comes to drugs like Meth or Speed. I am more talking about drugs like Pot. People kill for Meth and Speed. Pot users like to relax and eat Fritos and enjoy the Star Wars Trilogy.

I say the TRUE "gateway drug" is the prescription pad at your local doctor's office.

Look at how many prescription drugs are out there and ask yourself how how are THEY to get?  Probably easier to get than pot!