The Constitution Party believes the government should legislate morality outlawing gambling and  recreational drugs (alcohol my be iffy).  They take a strong pro-life stance.

Libertarians believe gambling and drugs should be legal and individuals that partake of those do so at their own risk.  Libs seem split on the pro-life issue of abortion, but most agree the decision is best left to a doctor and a patient or should be dealt with at the state level at best.

Continuing the war on drugs is where they really lose me.  As tragic as drug abuse can be, prohibition seems worse.

David Jahn

Not intending to get into a big debate, but CP's platform would leave drugs, abortion, etc. (social nanny) to the States.

The two party's seem to be close in their platforms.

While the two parties are very close, they are different.

The Constitution Party platform does take a hard postion on drugs. 

The Constitution Party will uphold the right of states and localities to restrict access to drugs and to enforce such restrictions. We support legislation to stop the flow of illegal drugs into these United States from foreign sources. As a matter of self-defense, retaliatory policies including embargoes, sanctions, and tariffs, should be considered.

At the same time, we will take care to prevent violations of the Constitutional and civil rights of American citizens. Searches without probable cause and seizures without due process must be prohibited, and the presumption of innocence must be preserved.

That gives me the impression they want to continue the war on drugs, certainly at the national level. 

They have this to say about abortion:

We declare the unalienable right of Life to be secured by our Constitution "to ourselves and our Posterity". Our posterity includes children born and future generations yet unborn. Any legalization of the termination of innocent life of the born or unborn is a direct violation of our unalienable right to life.

They go on to say:

No government may legalize the taking of the unalienable right to life without justification, including the life of the pre-born; abortion may not be declared lawful by any institution of state or local government - legislative, judicial, or executive. The right to life should not be made dependent upon a vote of a majority of any legislative body

That appears to be a strong prolife statement.  Some libertarians would applaud that, but we also have some strong pro-choice members as well who may hold the majority.

They also oppose recognizing rights of gays in any way:

We reject the notion that sexual offenders are deserving of legal favor or special protection, and affirm the rights of states and localities to proscribe offensive sexual behavior. We oppose all efforts to impose a new sexual legal order through the federal court system. We stand against so-called "sexual orientation" and "hate crime" statutes that attempt to legitimize inappropriate sexual behavior and to stifle public resistance to its expression. We oppose government funding of "partner" benefits for unmarried individuals. Finally, we oppose any legal recognition of homosexual unions.

Topics like these are what separate the parties.  Respect for freedoms negates banning most things.  To Libertarians, the war on drugs is wrong on many levels and does more harm then good.  I believe the majority of Libertarians (even those who are pro-life) would agree that the decision as to whether or not to terminate a pregnancy is best left to a woman and her doctor.  They are the ones who will have to make peace with themselves for their actions.  Finally, gays are as much a part of our culture as anyone.  We can't deny them basic human rights.

Libertarians can continue to debate these issues, whereas the debate seems to be over in the Constitution Party.

I hope that helps.

David Jahn

A coalition party wouldn't be out of the question.  At the heart of the matter, limited government and increased individual liberties are the key.  I never understood why people, particuarly Democrats, are not allowed to voice dissent against a particular platform in the party line.  Lieberman for example, was a life long Democrat, but their left wing base demonizes the man for his support of the war despite his life long work for nearly every other single piece of Democatic Party principle.  I see no reason why Libertarians would take such a stance like the Democratic Party.  Allowing dissent and open discussion of issues is excellent, and I see that's not really the case here.  As far as drugs go, personally, I have nothing against medical marijuana and decriminalizing small amounts that would normally be prosecuted for possession, especially as prisions become overcrowded and violent offenders are released.  Heroin, cocaine, and other hard drugs are a different story.  I've lost a few friends to cocaine, not by death, but just not the same person whatsoever, and I've seen what it's done to them.  I've never seen that from a person who smokes alot of marijuana.  It should be considered a case by case situation, as should nearly every issue. That being said, I think it would be a legitimate government action to drug test welfare recipients.  The system itself needs overhaul, but drug use on the tax payer dime is completely unacceptable.  Again, there's alot of gray area, but I hope this spells out my position a bit for you.

All this is true, Samantha.  I would suppose that we could look to countries that have no criminal penalties for drug abuse for keys to how detrimental it is or isn't.

If I could be sure that the lawyers would be kept at bay with a decriminalized drug policy, then I may say, c'est la vie.  But you know sure-as-shit the first time an employer fires a worker for being stoned on the job, or landlord refuses to lease an apartment to a doper, or health insurance company refuses to renew a policy to a doper after an OD in the hospital room, the ACLU will be out to make billions from the real victims of this victimless act. Would there be calls for a Constitutional Amendment for equal rights for dopers?

I had my share of ganji back-in-the-day. I have some regrets about some of my decisions while under the clouds.  As a parent, I will strongly discourage my kids from using, without feeling hypocritical.

Agreed they are contracts, but as you stated, to fire a drunk is difficult under ADA, the dopers would fall into the same category.

Other than that .....

ADA definitely has problems.  Look at Odell Thurman, ex-Cincinnat Bengal.  He's suing the NFL for discimination because he has an alcohol problem.  It doesn't excuse him for being irresponsible to get yet another DUI.  I don't mean to pick on the guy, but that's just an example.  If you can't function at work or do your job properly, that's not an ADA issue, that's incompetence.  For an extreme example, let's say someone is a stone mason and later suffers a spinal injury and is incapable of doing the same job.  Absent a trade-specific disability policy, he's not capable of doing that job anymore.  That doesn't mean the company can't shift him to another position within the company to fulfill another role he'd still be qualified to do.  Now, if he was unable to fulfill any other function with the company, had no disability insurance, etc. and was relieved because he simply could not fufill any job position with competence, that's another issue.  That's not discrimination.  Now in an ideal world, he'd have proper insurance and the employer steps up to provide for his income, but that's not the case right now.