The article here on NRO is one of the few things about National Review that I find irritating. I am no friend of the drug legalisation crowd.
Without getting into the entire debate about the merits of drug legalisation, Mr Murdock makes some spurious arguments that conservatives are quick to decry when they issue from the mouths of liberals. Libertarians fall down when they only argue the merits of an idea or law based up its efficaciousness. If our laws against murder did not work, would the best course of action then be to get rid of them? Or would it be to find a way to strengthen them until they do work. Simply stating that the drug war as it is being fought now is ineffective is not a valid argument for surrendering.
Mr Murdock also claims that the focus on the drug war takes resources away from the war on terror. But I suspect he would be quick to decry the argument that a war on Iraq takes resources away from the war on terror. Simply because we have a war on terror that is our highest priority doesn't mean that we should neglect our other responsibilities. Saying that, "Federal law enforcers should be single-minded if not obsessive about foiling "3/11," "4/11" or whatever we may have to dub the next 9/11" shows a distressing lack of thought about the various responsibilities of our government. Did federal law enforcement have nothing to do before terrorism was recognised as such a threat.
Perhaps there is an argument to be made for drug legalisation that is convincing. This is not it.