The idea of ending the War on Drugs is something that is still relatively controversial, especially in a conservative state. Many conservatives don't want to end the War on Drugs, and they feel that drugs do not have a place in their society. Although they identify as Constitutionalists and embrace small government, they fail to see how this war on members of society grows government. Our club decided to show a conservative state the error of their ways by holding an "End the Drug War" event on our campus.

Utah is one of the most supportive states in the country for the War on Drugs. According to the Libertas Institute here in Utah, well over 50% of the state's population does not support the legalization of marijuana for either recreational or medical uses. With those facts, we can only imagine that Utahns would disagree with legal drugs like cocaine and heroin. Our chapter at Southern Utah University decided to take this battle head on, and inform the community about the issues that the drug war has brought upon our society.

On November 5th our chapter hosted an "End the Drug War" event on our campus. We tabled for 3 days leading up to the event to attract a crowd and received a few negative comments from the students and community. We felt that this was an important issue to educate the community about, so we decided to continue our plans and host our event. At our table we had literature and handouts available to educate students. They were provided by the Drug Policy Alliance. Many students seemed interested in learning about our arguments, and we attracted a pretty good crowd. We were even attracted the local school paper to cover our event and help us spread the word.

Through SFL's Virtual Speaker Bureau, we were able to host Jack A. Cole, one of the founders of Law Enforcement Against Prohibition (LEAP), as a virtual speaker. We hosted Jack Cole through Skype, and he laid out his arguments for ending the War on Drugs. He lectured for an hour to a group of 30 students and community members. Many students found his arguments interesting, but they were still skeptical.

While we felt some negative push-back, we were happy to plant these new ideas into a conservative campus and state. We wanted to make the discussion non-taboo and noncontroversial, so by legitimizing these arguments, we are able to start a new debate in the community. We hope that this will continue to encourage change, especially in a community that doesn't want change in regard to the War on Drugs.

As pro-Liberty circles revel in their victory after residents of Oregon and Washington DC voted by ballot initiative to decriminalize the recreational use of cannabis, two additional victories in Arizona--both won by initiative as well, are also worth mentioning.

In a recent interview with Tom Woods, the Tenth Amendment Center's Michael Boldin explains Prop 122 and Prop 303 in detail, and their significance to the modern state's rights movement in the context of other pro-Tenth Amendment initiatives which made their way to ballots on election day.

Proposition 122 affirms one tool in the kit of the state's rights movement, one that serves as the title of the Tom Woods book on the subject, nullification. Prop 122 alters the language in Arizona's state constitution to mirror the "Anti-Commandeering Doctrine," a series of precedents set by the US Supreme court (one among them as recent as 2012) which uphold a state's right to refuse cooperation with federal authorities to enforce federal mandates.

According to Judge Andrew Napolitano, a state's refusal to cooperate with federal agents can make federal laws "nearly impossible to enforce." For all practical purposes, this is tantamount to a state nullifying, or rejecting, federal law.

In his interview Michael Boldin explains how Prop 122 may work in action:

"Every time the feds do a raid...they always have assistance from state and local police, state and local investigators, and state and local resources. The sheriffs block the roads, the cops knock on the door. They carry all the water while the feds have one or two agents directing the show. If the states withdraw support, then the federal government does not have the manpower or the resources to do to you what they want to do to you." 

Boldin envisions a broad range of issues on which the state of Arizona could invoke its new constitutional language to block federal overreach. In his article on the subject for the Tenth Amendment Center, Boldin suggests

Baylor University YAL's discussion unit on the War on Drugs culminated in an event last Wednesday focusing on mandatory minimum sentencing.

Our members constructed a prison cell and had Baylor students take pictures in it, holding profiles of people sentenced using mandatory minimums. The profiles, which were structured like booking cards, also gave an overview of why our club was there, what mandatory minimums are, and where students could find more information.

We set up our table and passed out End the Drug War swag, books, and pocket constitutions. This was a visually striking event that brought a lot of interested students over to our table to talk to YAL members about an issue that has not received much attention at Baylor.

Recently, actor Leonardo Di Caprio spoke on the issue of climate change. Of course, being a staunch liberal, he basically advocated for policies that increase taxation and regulations to centralize government control. The libertarian in me cringes when rich Hollywood actors advocate for policies that increase the cost of living for people like my family. So I would like to quickly comment on libertarian solutions to climate change.

The fact is, climate change is idiosyncratic to overconsumption of natural resources. But how do we solve it? Government regulation and taxation on emissions? Or is it the role of the government to subsidize clean technology? Well there are several issues.

When placing these tough regulations on emissions standards, there are going to be higher energy prices and food prices, both of which hurt the poor. If there are subsidies given to major corporations to provide clean technology, then there’s the high probability that cleaner and more efficient technology will be excluded from the market, thus causing cronyism and an inability to resolve the issue efficiently.