Drawing on his immigration-crack comparision, Goldberg then chastises advocates for drug legalization for their inconsistency on the immigration issue. He writes:Some drug legalization advocates hang their position on a lot of moral preening about the absolute right of the individual to do what he wants. But many of the same people will then argue that it is - and should be - an outrageous crime to hire an illegal immigrant.To read Goldberg's take, one would think most drug reformers are anti-immigration. That's just not the case. Most prominent opponents of the Drug War I can think of also hold fairly liberal views on immigration. Perhaps there are a couple of people who fit Goldberg's description (my guess is that they work at National Review), but it's not a dichotomy that's all that prevalent in the drug reform movement, or among libertarians. And I certainly don't think there are enough people holding both views to merit an entire column attacking them.
Goldberg goes on:Most opponents of the drug war came to their position because they consider the effort worthy in principle, but ultimately futile in the face of a more determined "enemy," and a bit silly since the gains of winning aren't that important to them.No. Most opponents of the drug war aren't utilitarians. Most came to our position because drug laws create consensual crimes, because we don't feel it's the government's responsibility to tell it's citizens what they can and can't put into their bodies, and because it's certainly not the government's function to enforce those laws by throwing people in prison, and by eviscerating the Bill of Rights.
The vast majority of us also see no reason why the government should prevent willing laborers from freely contracting with willing employers.
In other words, there's no inconsistency here.
Read it all.