Here in New Hampshire, there’s been a bit of a storm brewing lately over the definition of "conservative." The Republican Party basically owned this state for almost 100 years until the 2006 election ushered in Democratic majorities in both the house and senate, and now New Hampshire Republicans are trying to regroup. But is there a message they can unite behind, and is such unity even necessary?

Attending events such as the Strafford County GOP picnic gives me some insight into this question. What I see at these events is a whole lot of support for Texas Congressman Ron Paul, and not a whole lot of support for anybody else.

This bodes very well for the future of anti-prohibitionism within the Republican Party, although mainstream politicians may not yet have received this message. Dr. Paul received 208 votes (73%) in the Strafford County Straw Poll, which was also attended by Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee, Colorado Congressman Tom Tancredo, and representatives from most of the other Republican presidential candidates. Most of the Republican candidates refuse to budge against Prohibition, even on the question of a state's right to set its own medical marijuana policy, but Dr. Paul has been a staunch opponent of federal Drug and Marijuana Prohibition throughout his ten term career in the U.S. Congress. (I can't say for sure, but that might be one reason why a lot of people haven't heard of him -- opponents of the new Prohibition traditionally don't receive a whole lot of TV time.)

There have been a few Republican exceptions in the post-1970 "War on Drugs" era. Republican economist Milton Friedman, a Nobel laureate, spoke consistently against Drug Prohibition until his death in 2006. In his foreword to a Cato Institute publication called Beyond Prohibition: An Adult Approach to Drug Policies in the 21st Century (2000), Friedman wrote "As a nation, we have been destroying foreign countries because we cannot enforce our own laws. As a nation, we have been responsible for the murder of literally hundreds of thousands of people at home and abroad by fighting a war that should never have been started and can be won, if at all, only by converting the United States into a police state."

Another notable Republican exception would be William F. Buckley, Jr., longtime editor of The National Review and the individual regarded by many as the father of modern conservatism. "Even if one takes every reefer madness allegation of the prohibitionists at face value," he wrote, "marijuana prohibition has done far more harm to far more people than marijuana ever could."

But there's another thing about Friedman and Buckley which sets them apart from other conservatives -- they never ran for office.* Since Richard Nixon declared his "War on Drugs" in 1970, the so-called "law and order" approach has prevailed among Republican politicians. Ron Paul is a very notable exception to this rule, a Republican politician who says things like "I've always been very clear that the Drug War is a lot worse than the drugs themselves."

If we turn back a few pages in our history books, we will find that Alcohol and Drug Prohibition were originally regarded as "progressive" policies. In those days, most conservatives believed the federal government had no business prohibiting personal choices. Alcohol Prohibition, we might recall, required a Constitutional Amendment in order to become federal law in 1920, and another Amendment was required to repeal the egregious mistake in 1933.

But that's all ancient history. Today, the Republican Party faces some tough choices on the issues, and one of those choices will be how it should react to the growing number of anti-prohibitionists within its ranks. The party's base appears to be shrinking, and frankly, as an independent I just don't see how shunning Republicans who dare to oppose Prohibition is going to help the party reconstruct itself in New Hampshire or across the United States.

The presidential candidates provide a remarkable study in contrasts. When I asked John McCain if he saw any similarity between Alcohol Prohibition and the War on Drugs, he replied that there was no similarity at all. But when STRM's Toby Iselin asked Ron Paul the same question in Strafford County, he replied "They're exactly the same. Prohibition doesn't work. Prohibition causes crime... the whole War on Drugs is just about as disastrous as the War in Iraq." When I spoke to Dr. Paul a bit later, he told me "The Drug Prohibition program that’s going on now is every bit as bad if not worse than what happened with the prohibition of alcohol." And I didn't even have to ask -- he volunteered the comparison.

I've also heard some pretty ridiculous ideas about how the demand for drugs can be reduced. Mitt Romney told me we needed to "reinstitute a campaign as powerful as 'Just Say No' was." John McCain also said we needed another program like "Just Say No." So I asked Dr. Paul if he thought that would be a good solution to the nation's drug problem, and to me his answer was like a breath of fresh New Hampshire air. "There’s a lot of abuse of drugs… a lot of illegal drugs are abused and a lot of prescription drugs are abused," he told me. "And I think doctors should say no in prescribing too much medication, and if somebody’s abusing drugs, or alcohol and cigarettes, they themselves should have a 'Just Say No' for their own personal life."

"Saying no is good," he told me, "but let’s find out who’s supposed to say no. I'm tired of the federal government telling us what we should do and shouldn't do."

Without a doubt, some readers will think to themselves that Dr. Paul’s position is naïve. But despite our DEA's intensive, intrusive, and expensive efforts to interdict marijuana and other drugs, only a tiny fraction are seized. In economic terms, supply continues to meet demand. But unfortunately, our policies are making all the wrong people rich and causing serious social problems along the way.

So who’s being naïve?

*Correction: William F. Buckley, Jr., did run for mayor of New York in 1965, but he had not yet become an anti-prohibitionist, and Nixon's "all-out War on Drugs" had not yet been declared.