Over forty years ago, Baby Boomers were encouraged to experiment with drugs (smoke it, snort it, pop it, shoot it) as part of embracing the cultural changes, the culture clashes, and the “cultural revolution.”  The idea was to detach from the existing conventions and societal hierarchies.

The merits, as well as the excesses, of that era continue to evoke strong emotions, often in the form of nostalgia or regret, and perpetuated through film and music.  There are some who have never moved on, who remain stuck in a “ganja” haze, and are perfectly content.  And there are the others who moved on but maintain that recreational drugs (marijuana, for the most part) are no more harmful than an occasional cocktail.

We can’t debate the experts’ analyses of maturity, self-control, addictive personalities or religious tenets in this short commentary.  What we can do is lay out a common sense position for legalizing marijuana in the U.S., which might help turn the tide of extreme violence that is racing at breakneck speed onto our border states.

There is a very real danger proliferating up and down California’s border with Mexico, and the war being waged against the Mexican cartels for the running of illegal drugs is now spilling into our country.  At the same time, Mexico, like California, is on the verge of financial and social collapse.  The reason for these failures is the hundreds of millions of dollars of illegal drug money.  If marijuana were legalized, those hundreds of millions would find their way into city coffers.  The “illegal” aspect remains the exclusive reason for the violence.

The root cause of this war is Americans’ insatiable thirst for illegal drugs.

Exacerbating the bloody conflicts is Americans’ unapologetic unwillingness to “just say no,” like the naïve anti-drug campaign of the 1970s.  It might’ve been cool back then to spit in the face of common sense, but today that cool has been overshadowed by the savage violence associated with drug traffic.  Self-indulgence and lack of personal responsibility makes victory in a war on illegal drugs impossible.

1920s Prohibition will never again be revisited, because no one who enjoys fine wines, champagnes, beer, and old Scotch will ever sacrifice that pleasure.  Alcoholic beverages have become the most accessible and legal choice to escape our every day stresses (which are mounting exponentially).  The irony is that alcohol kills 6½ times more American youth than all other illicit drugs combined.

Protecting our children should always be the primary focus in eradicating the illegal drug pipeline.  However, it goes without saying that our best-laid plans for our children’s safety and well-being can be overridden by peer pressure to be cool.  Endless adoration of celebrity “bad boy” and “bad girl” behavior, and movie glamorization of violence in the drug trade turns this battle into a joke.  And who is having the last laugh?  The cartels.

California is on the verge of bankruptcy, and so the political lobbying to legalize marijuana is going into overdrive. This convinces us, at least, of the efficacy of possibly generating huge tax revenues through the sale of “legal” grass.  Whether you agree or not, legalizing marijuana is an idea whose time has not only come but may be the only way to survive what has already escalated into a protracted un-winnable war, not only on our southern border but also in Afghanistan.

The Office of National Drug Control Policy estimated that between 1989 and 1998, American users spent $39 billion to $77 billion yearly on cocaine and $10 billion to $22 billion yearly on heroin. To arrive at these estimates, they multiplied the number of users by their typical expenditures, and then converted the resulting estimates to 1998-dollar equivalents. Most of the downward trend resulted from changes in the consumer price index.  The U.S. now spends over $19 billion a year on the war on drugs.  That money would be better spent on prevention rather than on interdiction.

We are not saying that America should revive the 1909 marketing of pharmaceuticals - “…marijuana, heroin and morphine…is, in fact, a perfect guardian of health,” but that we use common sense to regulate the distribution as we do for all other drugs.  Heck, all you have to do is advertise the side effects on television and that’s enough to scare you.  Will there be abuse?  Yes.  Can we live with it?  Don’t we already?  The best way to police drugs is to police ourselves and stop flushing taxpayer dollars down the toilet (with the evidence).

We’ve had it both ways for nearly a century: alcohol (legal) on one end of the teeter-totter, and drugs (illegal) on the other.  Should it balance?  Would it be worth the time and money invested to legalize marijuana?  We say yes, because, so far, the anti-drug policymakers have yet to provide cohesive answers as to why the current strategy on the war on drugs, which costs billions of dollars and thousands of man-hours, has never worked.

Americans will always abhor and complain about the violence associated with drug crime. At the same time, however, they also need to take a long, hard look in the mirror and face the real problem.

Many people I respect believe that conservatives cannot appeal to a majority of voters simply by saying “no” to the socialist agenda now guiding our government.  They say we must have an alternate positive plan, rather than simply obstructing the rush to totalitarianism.  I disagree.

A train headed for a washed-out bridge benefits immensely from anything that safely halts its headlong rush toward destruction.  If the passengers realize the danger, they would also perceive the value of halting forward progress.

But for those who require a positive plan, one is available and easily understood.  As so many profound ideas these days, it comes from the source of much modern wisdom–half-hour network comedy classics.  In the NBC series Seinfeld, the character of George Castanza suffered week after week from the results of his chronically poor judgment–lost jobs, broken relationships, public humiliation and personal embarrassment.  In one episode, George realizes that the source of his troubles is his own warped instinct to always make the wrong decision.  He further decides that he will, from that moment on, always do exactly the opposite what his instincts tell him to do.  Instantly, he finds success and happiness — all because he decided to “do the opposite.”

This is the positive alternative conservatives have been looking for.  Obama spends trillions of dollars we don’t have, and plunges the nation into debt we can never repay.  Saying no to this is certainly sane and responsible, but doing the opposite would be even better.  Instead of increasing spending, how about reducing it?  Would reducing spending play well with the electorate?   In a recent poll, Californians faced with a massive state deficit preferred the solution of reducing spending to raising taxes by a 3 to 1 margin.

Obama has abandoned long-time allies to their fates by canceling defense programs and dismissing vital relationships, gone hat in hand to our sworn enemies to apologize for America’s foreign policy, and demonstrated tolerance for outrages committed by rogue regimes.  Certainly ceasing these self-defeating behaviors would be a positive step.  But how much better to do the opposite–install missile defense systems in Poland because it strengthens a stalwart ally, support Israel in defending itself against terrorists on all sides and a nuclear-ready Iran, acknowledge and strengthen our special relationship with the United Kingdom, and show pride in and demand respect for the sacrifices generations of Americans have made to defend freedom and liberty throughout the world.

Obama has vastly increased government control of private industry.  The current executive branch is now in the executive suites of banks and lending institutions, automobile manufacturers, and soon health care providers.  Obama has bought a majority share of Chrysler with taxpayer money, then handed it over to union bosses.  Clearly, simply saying no to all of this Marxist nationalization of private industry would be a demonstration of sanity.  But doing the opposite would qualify as insightful and visionary.   Allow the ruthlessly fair free market to pick winners and losers rather than government bureaucrats.  If companies cannot compete, then they must fail and make room for those that offer what the public wants.  Artificially propping up inefficient companies rewards incompetence and punishes competitors who are actually doing things correctly.  Taking government out of private industry energizes, enables and encourages investment, innovation and success. 

Obama promises to raise taxes on the rich, on businesses, on the most successful entities in our society and economy.  This is a policy that, again, punishes success.  Not punishing success, and refusing to raise taxes, is a definite improvement.  But doing the opposite–reducing taxes on successful individuals and enterprises–is infinitely better.  Encourage and reward success with lower taxes, and we shall certainly have more of it.  Our economy will expand, employment will grow, revenues will increase, just as it did under Ronald Reagan, and in response to George W. Bush’s tax cuts.

I do not agree with those who say conservatives cannot simply be the Party of No.  A few administrations ago, “Just say no” was First Lady Nancy Reagan’s advice to kids to avoid drugs.  It was widely ridiculed by the Left and the media.  Yet drug abuse undeniably begins voluntarily, which requires an affirmative response, not to mention a substantial investment.  Just saying “no” when drugs are offered effectively eliminates the problem.

But for those who believe conservatives need a specific plan to counter the tide of socialism sweeping across the country, the solution is clear and simple.  Take any policy of the current administration and the Democrat-controlled Congress and just do the opposite.  In every case, such a course will result in greater success, expanded liberty, and a brighter future for Americans.

On the other hand, continuing in the current direction will result in America becoming a pitiful minor character in a show about nothing.

I never thought much about religion, until they started taking it away.

No prayers at graduation ceremonies or before the football game.  Remove the Ten Commandments from the courthouse and public square.  Excise the cross from the city seal.  Banish “under God” from the Pledge of Allegiance.

I read about the teacher who was advised not to mention her religion at school.  Later she was asked to sign a petition that she would not teach religion.  All but two other teachers at her school had signed, her colleagues told her, and it wasn’t a religious school anyway, so why not just go along?  Ultimately, all the teachers signed the petition except the woman in question.  She was later transferred to another school.

Can you guess where this incident took place?  San Francisco?  New York?  Washington D. C.?  No, it was in the German town of Tilsit, in 1936, as documented in the book “Frauen,” Alison Owings’ oral history of women living under the Third Reich.

Whether it’s Nazi Germany, the Soviet Union, the Peoples Republic of China, or any other government that subjugates its people, totalitarian regimes can’t tolerate religion because oppressed people must have only one master–the state.  Religion is the last bastion of faith, hope and freedom for the individual–and none of those essentials are permitted under totalitarian regimes.

Once in this country--founded in part by those seeking religious freedom--God, church and faith were woven into the fabric of our national character.  The Declaration of Independence proclaims that our fundamental rights are endowed by our Creator, not granted by our government.

But in recent decades, religion and the religious have been under attack–assailed in individual and class action lawsuits, intimidated by threats from the ACLU, savaged by activist judges who have no fear of Judgment.  Those who are guided by faith are portrayed in America as “the religious right,” marginalized as a fanatic fringe.  President Obama chose to observe the National Day of Prayer privately, rather than in the customary public ceremony, putting as much space between himself and people of faith as possible.  Candidate Obama spoke of the ignorant masses who cling to their guns and religion.

No minority group in the world is as frequently vilified and freely targeted as Christians.  The Catholic Church vies with the CIA as the villain of choice in modern films. Newsweek  Magazine recently reported on “The Decline and Fall of Christian America.”  Such stories appear regularly in the mainstream press, though there is scant coverage of religion’s recurring resurrections.

The goal is clearly to erase religion as a force in our lives.  Nowhere is this more evident than in matters dealing with gays.  First, the Left asked for tolerance of the gay lifestyle.  Then came pleas for acceptance.  Then they wanted equal rights, which blossomed into gay pride days and parades  Soon after, they demanded special protections for gays from discrimination, defamation, and depredation.  Then they insisted that gay lifestyles be taught as part of school curricula, even as every vestige of religion was expunged form those same classrooms.  Gay marriage is now legal in five states.  And a contestant in the Miss USA pageant (Carrie Prejean of Vista, California) is declared ineligible to compete because she dared to give an answer to a question about gay marriage that reflected her deeply-held religious values.  Thus, holding a religious opinion that differs from the views of the Left can lead to the authorities taking away a lifelong dream.  Who knows what the next dissenter will be forced to forfeit?

So maybe Newsweek is right, and religion is dead.  Maybe Americans of faith are a shrinking and increasingly maligned minority.  And if you don’t share those religious views, perhaps you think this is no great loss.  But if those who govern us are not guided by divine inspiration, if they do not answer to a higher authority, if they do not recognize any power greater than their own, then we are all at their mercy and must hope that we never incur their wrath.

And ask yourself, what is the next idea we’ll be forbidden to believe in?

When the president alludes to his mandate the messages are delivered with the smug satisfaction that he need not explain himself nor defend the mind-boggling amount of taxpayer dollars he is throwing at every problem that comes his way, much like throwing spaghetti against the wall.  But in his case, if it sticks, we’re cooked.

His fan club, apparently so overwhelmed with his rock star “tude,” doggedly cling to the “hope” he promised.  “Hope” and “Change” were, after all, burned into his teleprompter.

What has become as dangerous as a truckload of C-4 is that hope, by itself, is not always enough.  Those same BHO groupies are “stuck on hope” because they still subsist on the incessant superficial media coverage of President Bush’s financial blunders.

Obama’s followers have yet to understand or accept where their fearless leader has taken Americans in these first 100 days – straight down Thomas Crapper’s throne.  If they persist in their blind adoration, they’ll be enjoying their just desserts a la commode.

Former Assistant Secretary of the Treasury, Paul Craig Roberts, in his March 2008 article entitled The Collapse of American Power, offered this bleak assessment: “…the fact of the matter is that the U.S. is bankrupt.”  That statement was made during the Bush Administration.  What conservative Americans are learning, while liberals continue to savor the Chosen One, is that one trillion dollars of debt has morphed into several trillions, a staggering amount most humans cannot wrap their brain around.  It is turning recovery into a mathematical impossibility.

The “in the tank” media, reports every little Bear market rally as if recovery was at hand.  And whenever Ben Bernanke speaks, his presentation is reminiscent of “When E.F. Hutton talks, people listen.”  That’s the joke of course, because we all know what happened to E.F. Hutton.

And so goes Wall Street.  Not so very long ago, everyone listened to Alan Greenspan too.  And look where we are now.  “The thrill is gone” as B.B. King said, “free from the spell” of Wall Street economists.

For you recalcitrant liberals, there is the National Bankruptcy Survival Guide, in which Seth Van Brocklin explains the difficulty in quantifying the national debt.  As he states: “Once numbers start getting up into the trillions, they literally become mind-numbing.”

By way of illustration, Van Brocklin explains just how large one trillion dollars actually is:  “If you were able to earn $1 per second continuously, you would accumulate $1 Billion after 33 years.”  But, to make $1 Trillion at the rate of $1 per second, “it would take 33,000 years.”  We’re pretty sure you can now visualize twelve times that amount, which is roughly the national debt under the current Administration.

It’s difficult not to feel and sound morose at times.  The present Administration (as well as the numerous fiscal blunders and catastrophes of previous Administrations) have forced the American People to duck and dodge an unrelenting monetary meteor shower which is hitting us all left, right, and center.  Even the Administration’s indignation over Bernie Madoff seems rather comical when you step back in order to see a bigger picture, that is, the federal government now running the biggest Ponzi scheme in history.  But with a solid majority, the bad guys aren’t even getting a slap on the wrist.

The president rode into office on a wave of popularity with a promise to fix the economic mess he inherited (as we are constantly reminded).  He’s smart, but not that smart.  If he were the brainchild his followers touted he is during those nightmarish months of campaigning, he wouldn’t now be crushing the country with a spending tsunami.  And as the country is crushed, so are our lives, our livelihoods, our dreams and aspirations, and, most tragically, our children’s future.

As elected leader of the U.S., one would either have to be totally unprepared, inexperienced or ignorant to not understand the magnitude of this economic crisis.  A logical conclusion would be that this President is either too ignorant, OR fully understands and is lying to Americans -- perhaps running the economy, and thereby the nation, into the ground to realize a larger ideological agenda in the naïve belief it’s for the greater good.

The saddest part is this: even if conservatives were to reclaim the majority in Congress, slash taxes across the board, break the hold unions have on industry, resurrect manufacturing and purge entitlements to illegal immigrants, those efforts would only be a blip on the radar of history.

While the media doesn’t even try to conceal their bias anymore, they continue to squash the opposition through the denigration of patriotically concerned Americans who are now fighting back to save our Republic.  It is not a pretty picture, and there will be no honor at the end of the day for the media.

This is why the TEA party participant numbers are swelling.  No matter what kind of negative hype the media invents, citizens are on to them and there’s a new wave of optimism about to crush the Left’s favorite milieu – carefully crafted ignorance.

We know for a fact (and readily admit) that there are just as many academically intelligent people on the left as there are on the right. After all, America wasn’t conceived and built by dummies.  We, therefore, cannot understand why logical and common sense answers are being cast aside or rejected entirely—the way a demented fisherman tosses the filets of his catch into the drink and tries to sell us the innards.  Americans won’t be buying your stinking innards much longer.  Looming inflation won’t let them.

Our greatest fear is searching for, but not finding, viable solutions to reverse the trade and industry mess in which we find ourselves. The more research we find out, the more we realize it is becoming impossible to clean up after this disaster.

Americans must find a way to strike a balance between regulation, to protect against greed, but at the same time allow everyone to pursue their dreams unhindered by a parasitic socialist system designed to quash our freedoms.

The TEA party participants are looking for that balance and we will not settle for less.