I found this delicious comment at Reason Magazine. I believe it explains everything I don’t understand about the Republican Party.

“I personally find certain types of drugs objectionable, and the abusers of those drugs offend my moral sensibilities, so better a total assault on the personal liberty of everyone else than even one of them go free”

While it’s not particularly consistent, it’s hard to refute the logic of folks like Bruce when you realize that under prohibition, no addict ever obtains a fix of his drug of choice or negatively affects anyone else around him. Plus, it’s so much easier for addicts to get clean and transition back into society when they have an extensive criminal record for possession and use of drugs. It prevents families from being destroyed by drug abuse by removing the drug abuser from the picture at taxpayer expense and then supporting the rest of the family on taxpayers’ charity. In summary, drug addicts are bad people, and we must therefore prevent them from making free choices because they might tangentially affect other people. Similar consideration should also be given to other personal behaviors I find distasteful or immoral. Don’t like it? Well, fuck you, it’s for your own good.

Well gee. Since it is for my own good that changes everything. On balance I think I’d rather vote to be robbed.