No, but if you claim to be the party of small government and less spending, while claiming Democrats to be the opposite, then support of the drug war and imprisoning drug users is certainly contrary to those ideals. How do you reconcile locking lots of people up and spending a lot of money to do that with your desire for a smaller, less intrusive government? I should think that imprisoning someone is about as intrusive as you can get, and we all understand how expensive it is.
Republicans/conservatives are not just about cutting government spending willy nilly, if there is a valid use then we are wise enough not to be against it. While most might agree that marijuana usage is a personal choice and probably might/should be legal, there are a lot more drugs out there within the scope of the war on drugs and their usage can be very dangerous, their usage can/should be restricted. Conservatives are for protecting an orderly social unit maximizing individual choice without this becoming generally detrimental to the whole. I think a state big enough to keep us from becoming a Mexico with its cartel problems might be necessary. I could be convinced by a valid and logical argument otherwise and, as stated above, even lean towards making "weed" legal.
But I do not think we, US society, want chaos and the misery that much drug use leads to generally. We also view the lesson of the folly of Prohibition, which was, with its repeal, acknowledgement that some things, such as alcohol abuse, just cannot be prevented while allowing others, who can properly moderate, the enjoyment of its use to their benefit.
Finding/achieving that dynamic and often delicate balance is what we conservatives, IMO, are for.
Democrats do not claim to be the party of small government. The reality is that neither party actually is, but Republicans claim to be. The loyalty of the modern Democratic party to the working and middle classes as opposed to the wealthy (who are the chief benefactors of most Republican policies) doesn't really factor into the drug war.
I think that the original post in this regard that you were responding to above was saying that
democrat party was/is not the party of small government but that
the democrat party claims to be "for the people."
The people are, and should be,
all the people...not choosing classes to be for and against...that is class warfare. Secondly, by being the party that advocates giving things from producers to those not producing just so they may go on not producing, then claiming to be for those people you are giving things to
and yet at the same time also being for those, many of whom are of the middle class who as supporting both the other ends, rich and poor, who are the ones you are taking from, well, that seems the sole purview of the combination of
contortionist-illusionist party, the democrats. They say look over here while waving minimal benefits to those who would accept them at the very bottom while disguising a gymnastic flexibility to at the very same time take from the middle class and the rich while waving a red scarf of blame only on the rich, the 1%ers, many of whom are democrats, but take the money/property from an entirety of the producers, all of whom are middle and upper class.
