On Marijuana, Social Conservatives Trend Statist

NewsRealBlog ^ | June 23, 2010 | Walter Scott Hudson

[Walter Scott Hudson]

The central conceit of the Left is their regard for outcome above principle, results above rights. “Progressivism” repackages the age-old idea that society has a collective right superior to the individual’s. We saw this in the argument for universal health care, where the Left regarded the outcome of “universal coverage” above the principle of personal liberty.

Unfortunately, this conceit is not limited to the Left. Social conservatives are willing to borrow à la carte from statist arguments when the results suit their taste. No issue evokes this phenomenon more than drug control policy.

NewsRealBlog hosted much debate on the legalization of marijuana over the weekend. The discussion was prompted by Sarah Palin’s recent statement that private in-home consumption is a negligible concern. Calvin Freiburger objected to the characterization of prohibition as a liberty issue, citing among his supporters Sean Hannity, Ann Coulter, and John Locke. Though Calvin is clearly not a statist, his argument depends upon a fundamentally statist belief.

[Minn]

Funny. Who said anything about rape. All kinds of 12 year olds would be willing to give a show for a price.

For a law and order type, you sure seem clueless to the fact that 12 year olds can't consent, and any sexual activity with them is rape. Kiddie porn is such a serious crime because it is only possible to produce it through rape. But I guess as long as nobody is high when the kids are being raped, no harm no foul, right?

And that mild intoxicant has these kind of consequences, ace.

Terrace man charged in heroin overdose death

Trial ordered for man tied to Bangor teacher’s heroin overdose

Mom spreads support after son’s heroin overdose

Hate to break it to you Sport, after you went to all the effort to dredge up all those links that have nothing to do with the topic at hand, but we're discussing marijuana here, not heroin.

OneWingedShark was simply pointing out the arbitrary nature and stupid application of many drug laws, not advocating for the legalization of heroin. If your wondering what the topic is, it's always useful to perhaps, I don't know, read the headline maybe.

[Persevero]

There is a difference - a big difference - between a Libertarian and a Conservative.

Both hang out at FR.

I am a conservative, myself.

It is Libertarians who want to legalize recreational drugs. Not Conservatives. Which is one of several reasons why I am not a Libertarian.

All Libertarians and Conservatives really have in common is a pro-capitalism, limited (to varying degrees) government position.

Foreign policy, all the social issues, we are at opposite ends of the spectrum. You will find the Libertarians with the Liberals there.

It is wrong for you, Hudson, to label conservatives statists. Conservatives believe in rule of law; statists deem the state above the law.

[dcwusmc]

You’ve struck a nerve again. Funny, it never fails to draw out the statists when the topic of Prohibition II comes up. All their fancy talk about “smaller, less intrusive government” goes right out the window when it comes to what THEY don’t like. Consistency is utterly foreign to them as a concept. And they wonder why they can’t keep hold of the reins of power.

To paraphrase Churchill (I believe), it’s the job of progressives to make all these monumental screwups, whilst it’s the job of conservatives to keep them from being corrected.

[dcwusmc]

There are, indeed, differences. But ANYONE who calls for laws to repress the private, non-coercive behaviors of others is a statist in my book. There is no place in a free society for such bullbleep. If you don’t like drugs, do as I do and LEAVE THEM ALONE. I promise you, no one will come along and force you to smoke a joint or snort some coke or anything of the kind... unless you’re a young male child and your government propaganda center has determined that you need to be doped up for the convenience of the teacher and administrators. It is just as wrong to forcibly drug someone as it is to forcibly PREVENT someone from taking a recreational substance IN THEIR OWN HOME (public behaviors are a whole ‘nother topic) as it is to prevent someone from buying a firearm to protect themselves as it is to REQUIRE them to own a weapon they do not want... It’s all part and parcel of the SAME thing... something called INDIVIDUAL LIBERTY, something the Founders went to great lengths to ensure we would have unless we keep on the road we’re on and piss it all away.

[dcwusmc]

There are, indeed, differences. But ANYONE who calls for laws to repress the private, non-coercive behaviors of others is a statist in my book. There is no place in a free society for such bullbleep. If you don’t like drugs, do as I do and LEAVE THEM ALONE. I promise you, no one will come along and force you to smoke a joint or snort some coke or anything of the kind... unless you’re a young male child and your government propaganda center has determined that you need to be doped up for the convenience of the teacher and administrators. It is just as wrong to forcibly drug someone as it is to forcibly PREVENT someone from taking a recreational substance IN THEIR OWN HOME (public behaviors are a whole ‘nother topic) as it is to prevent someone from buying a firearm to protect themselves as it is to REQUIRE them to own a weapon they do not want... It’s all part and parcel of the SAME thing... something called INDIVIDUAL LIBERTY, something the Founders went to great lengths to ensure we would have unless we keep on the road we’re on and piss it all away.

[TigersEye]

I can’t think of a bigger crock of sh*t than to label opposition to legalizing drugs as progressivism.

You're right. It's statism.

[Tailgunner Joe]

it would save our national forests which have become infested with the cartel’s marijuana farms

More likely legalizing pot will be followed by legalizing the illegal invaders who grow the stuff. Then we'll redistribute our national forests to the invaders so they can keep growing drugs on them.

[MetaThought]

Are your comments generally this full of non sequitor ?

[TigersEye]

All Libertarians and Conservatives really have in common is a pro-capitalism, limited (to varying degrees) government position. Foreign policy, all the social issues, we are at opposite ends of the spectrum. You will find the Libertarians with the Liberals there.

Baloney. I am Pro-Life, against the Gay agenda, for a strong national defense (which doesn't include the idiotic "nation building" liberal position Neo-Cons hold) and I am against the secular humanist indoctrination of children in public schools.

You want to believe what you wrote because it creates cover for your un-conservative drug prohibition position. You either support the Constitution in all circumstances or you don't. That is a conservative position.

[TigersEye]

Good post. Bull’s eye.

[Persevero]

I am afraid experience teaches us that it doesn’t stay “in the home.”

Also, “in the home” are dependent children, and more rarely dependent elderly and handicapped, who aren’t ok with the adults having their private drug abuse “in the home.”

The differences between Conservatives and Libertarians on the social agenda (gay agenda, abortion, drugs, prostitution, pornography, public nudity/sex, etc.) are pretty clearly staked out and have been for decades. I didn’t just invent them.

You hold the Libertarian position. Own it. Don’t blame Conservatives for not being Libertarians. We aren’t pretending to be Libertarians.

[Persevero]

“Baloney. I am Pro-Life, against the Gay agenda, for a strong national defense (which doesn’t include the idiotic “nation building” liberal position Neo-Cons hold) and I am against the secular humanist indoctrination of children in public schools.”

Pro-Life views can be consistently held in the Libertarian Party, IF they acknowledge the unborn to be an individual human being. Unfortunately the vast majority of the Libertarian Party apparently does not. I am glad you do.

I am unaware of how you could oppose the gay agenda from a strict Libertarian viewpoint, but I’d be glad to hear it.

As for defense, the classic Libertarian position as I understand it is akin to the Swiss: actual defense of our borders only. No treaties, no fighting for allies: for example, a Libertarian would not approve of WW1, WW2, Korea, VietNam, Desert Storm, or the current conflict. If you disagree with that I’d love to know why.

As for public schools, you probably oppose public schools, as do I.

[Tailgunner Joe]

Protecting life, marriage and national security all require action by the state.

[Ken H]

But it ain't gonna happen.

Rasmussen had the California ballot measure to tax and regulate marijuana leading on 11-22-2009 as follows:

49% support
38% oppose
12% undecided

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/general_state_surveys/california/49_in_california_favor_legalizing_taxing_pot

________________________________________________

It appears that CA voters are leaning toward the idea that...(wait for it)...

***Marijuana is a relatively minimal problem!***

[TigersEye]

I am unaware of how you could oppose the gay agenda from a strict Libertarian viewpoint, but I’d be glad to hear it.

Did I say I was a libertarian? I am a conservative and that is why I support legalization of drugs. You are a statist. A pick-and-choose Constitutionalist. A smorgasbord patriot. ;^)

[TigersEye]

Indeed they are and prohibition does not fit any of those proscribed duties of the state. Particularly Fedzilla.

[dcwusmc]

I hold the pro-founders, Constitution, Declaration of Independence position, which in a number of respects is similar to some of the libertarian positions. I have no use for any form of statistism, whether from the left or right. I will defend freedom for all, even the unpopular. I am a strong advocate of not hindering any non-coercive behavior which does not threaten the safety of non-participants. Above all I believe in minding my own business. Though I do reserve the right to use my power of moral suasion to convince someone not to harm himself or herself. I will never condone using the LAW to regulate another person’s voluntary private behavior. And I will continue to hold people who DO want laws outlawing such behaviors accountable as lousy, vile statists. Any questions?

[Eva]

I really don’t care whether adults choose to smoke marijuana or not. I would require them to submit to random drug testing on the job, though, especially if they work for the government, because I want to make sure that we are getting something for our tax dollars. Private industry will, of course, continue to drug test for the same reason.

[UnbelievingScumOnTheOtherSide]

I can’t think of a bigger crock of sh*t than to label opposition to legalizing drugs as progressivism.

Drug criminalization at the federal level is based on the New Deal interpretation of the Commerce Clause, the basis of most other Progressive regulation. After the failure of alcohol Prohibition, it has been the sop of the Left to buy off people like you on the "Right" and make you a fellow traveller in their corruption of the Constitution. You can still ban drugs at the state level and from abroad, but attempts to do that with alcohol 1900-1919 failed completely because we were a free people, right or wrong.

So, yes, you are a Progressive, Statist, Leftist, useful idiot, fellow traveller in the overall destruction of the United States. I hope you think keeping a few, very few who have a mind to, of your neighbors from having a toke was worth it.

[UnbelievingScumOnTheOtherSide]

It is Libertarians who want to legalize recreational drugs. Not Conservatives.

Rubbish. I want to "nuke" Iran and overturn Roe v. Wade. And I want the original interpretation of the Interstate Commerce Clause. With the death of New Deal Commerce Clause (a subset of getting rid of the cancer of Jurisprudence in general) goes the biggest single chunk of Statism. An incidental effect of that is to make almost all federal drug laws unconstitutional. The trade-off is worth it IMO. My post #39 applies to you as well as pissant.

If drugs were legalized outright and stand-alone, perhaps you (and, say, Antonin Scalia) would no longer support the New Deal Commerce Clause and, deprived of a majority, Statism would collapse today.

Of course, you can go along with the Left and support their perversion of the Commerce Clause until they don't need you anymore. Then maybe we'll have Socialism AND legal drugs, the worst of all worlds.

I would not have a principled objection to a drug Prohibition Constitutional Amendment, but I would warn against one on historical and pragmatic grounds. The current regime is doing no better than was done with alcohol.