Mickey Craig’s point about there being a difference between a classical liberal and a social liberal is well taken. Libertarians often refer to themselves as "economically conservative, but socially liberal" as a quick and dirty (too dirty) definition of their views. But my question is, how can we tell the difference as a practical matter? If a politician is pro-choice, might it not be on the classical liberal grounds that laws against abortion represent an infringement on the right to property (in this case the womb), rather than the from the social liberal’s insistence on "liberation" from responsibility for one’s actions? The same might be said of those who oppose sodomy laws. Libertarians and social liberals might agree on this issue, but for very different reasons, and unless the person advocating this position has expressed the thought processes behind it (as Arnold has, I believe, never done), how are we to assume that the Governor-elect is the latter rather than the former?
Moreover, I take issue with the statement "that those who indulge in drugs today, as a practical matter, become in one way or another wards of the state." As Jacob Sullum’s recent book suggests, there is (and long has been) a lot more drug use going on in America than statistics on "addiction" (which may or may not be a useful term) suggest. Drug prohibition, like that of the Prohibition of liquor and the modern crusade aganist tobacco was, in fact, the product of the same Progressive mentality that Craig denounces. Alas, the "marijuana industry" lacks the highly-paid lobbyists necessary to fight back.