"Well written, well researched, and the thesis put forth is well argued.... Woods has opened up an area of historical analysis that should invite further study." -Journal of American History
"During these times that challenge our freedoms there is no one more qualified to make U.S. history relevant to the fight against big government than Thomas Woods." -Barry Goldwater Jr. Former Member of Congress
"I strongly recommend Woods's work." -The Honorable Ron Paul, U.S. House of Representatives
"Written with great clarity and fluency, making the complex philosophical and theological concepts approachable." -Journal of American Studies
"A must-read." -Barron's
"An excellent reading source for anyone interested in financial markets, and much more so for anyone interested in learning about capitalism without all the misinterpretations being thrown about in the financial media." -Asia Times
"Provocative, well-written, and deserves to be read." -Catholic Historical Review
"An engaging and important contribution to scholarship on the history of American Catholicism." -Journal of the Historical Society
"Woods and [co-author Kevin] Gutzman appeal to both left and right in this constitutionalist jeremiad…. The authors' exegeses of the Constitution and court decisions, heavy on original intent arguments, are lucid and telling." -Publishers Weekly
"A marvelous read. Every chapter taught me something new and unexpected." -Tom Bethell, senior editor, The American Spectator
"The hottest book today is Meltdown, by my friend Tom Woods." -Judge Andrew Napolitano, senior judicial analyst, FOX News Channel
"Should be required reading." -Economic Affairs (London)
"Woods, one of the best classical liberal [libertarian] scholars of his generation, has once more placed us in his debt with this lucid and tightly argued book." -David Gordon, The Mises Review
"Tom Woods is one of my dearest allies in the struggle against wrong-headed and dangerous economic policy." -Peter Schiff
I used to support the War on Drugs before I knew any better.
Like this post? Subscribe to Tom's free e-letter, with Tom's commentary and monthly book giveaways. And to get the education they kept from you in school, learn real history and economics in your car with Tom's Liberty Classroom.
Bplaforest
Myself, I’d pull our troops back, give them a break and then give them an order: Go secure our southern border. Illegal drug and immigrant supply would slow to a trickle.
Fcww66
mr woods ive come to greatly admire your work and everything youre doing on behalf of freedom and common sense. and i love the way in which you defend ron paul. thnx.
http://twitter.com/OutTheFed Nancy Kovar
The Tea Party just can’t grasp this concept, though they do work very hard at trying to be as square as Tom Woods.
http://stateexempt.com RJ Miller
Honestly, this was the issue that brought me from conservatism to Libertarianism. And that was just the beginning…
I think the tipping point for me was when I realized that “controlled substances” were widely available regardless of the restrictions people have tried to put on it. John Stossel said something along the lines of, “We can’t even keep this stuff out of our own prisons” that I read online and I guess that drove the point home.
Coke is bad for you – do you really need a multi-trillion dollar bureaucracy to help you figure that out?
NeilBJ
I would like to hear the rest of the story as broadcaster Paul Harvey used to say. How do we visualize a society in which drugs are legal? I ask this not because I disagree with the premise that we should legalize drugs, but because I want know what is expected to happen following the legalization of drugs.
I assume that driving under the influence of any behavior altering substance would still be illegal and such a person would be held liable for any harm he has caused.
Chronic drug users are no doubt a burden on society and they would need extensive hospitalization to help effect a cure if that is the goal. What about those who can’t or won’t change and those who are cured and relapse?
If we still use the coercive power of the state to obtain the funds to pay for the treatment of drug addicts, hopefully the money will be used more effectively than it is now when used to arrest and jail drug addicts and dealers.
Will the state set up an agency to make sure that the drugs that are sold will meet federal standards of purity?
Sdmcduffie
Which would increase the price of the drugs, which would inspire even more ruthless people to get into the business of selling drugs to our kids. Brilliant plan!
http://weekendlibertarian.blogspot.com/ Ben
I’ve seen the progressive revolution in the Netherlands and it’s a beautiful lie. Soft-on-drug polices increase drug use and government dependency. Appeasement is weakness.
http://www.facebook.com/frank.koza Frank Koza
Thank you for highlighting the seizure power. That is the reason why Hillary Clinton declared the US cannot legalize drugs “because there’s too much money in it”. The government may profit much more from illegal seizures that aren’t contested than they would if they legalized and taxed drug commerce.
It’s the same with war on tobacco. Users simply ‘self-medicate’ with a low cost (before they justified excessive taxation) alternative to the big pharma offerings. The master settlement agreement was unconstitutional, imposing restrictions to competition which had no legal liabilities to maintain the market share of the big tobacco companies.
These aren’t moral decisions made by those in power as they claim, they are purely economical to increase their cash flow to maintain the empire.
I knew the war on drugs was a ridiculous notion as soon as i was old enough to know what it was. How? I own a dictionary and am familiar whith the defenitions of the words freedom and prohibit. Somehow they just don’t seem compatible.
Chzhdintn
…another route other then Mexico. With that kind of $ @ stake it would be done.
Chzhdintn
Not much different than it is now with the exception of less law enforcement and government involvement generally. People do not abstain from hard drugs because of the law. We do so because of their stupidity. There would not be an increase of users, with the exception of pot. If people smoke pot more and drank less that’s a net gain.
dude
we need to decrease government dependency by increasing government dependency! by jove, you’ve got it.
Pingback: Let’s Legalize Freedom | economicharmonies