Posted on 10/16/2012 9:45:44 AM PDT by SmithL
DENVER (AP) — It's not all hippies backing November's marijuana legalization votes in Colorado, Oregon and Washington.
Appealing to Western individualism and a mistrust of federal government, activists have lined up some prominent conservatives, from one-time presidential hopefuls Tom Tancredo and Ron Paul to Republican-turned-Libertarian presidential candidate and former New Mexico Gov. Gary Johnson.
"This is truly a nonpartisan issue," said Mark Slaugh, a volunteer for the Colorado initiative who is based in Colorado Springs, which has more Republicans than anywhere else in the state.
"States' rights! States' rights!" Slaugh cried as he handed out flyers about the state's pot measure outside a rally last month by Republican vice presidential candidate Paul Ryan. Quite a few passing Republicans took the flyer.
"It's fiscally prudent. It would be taxed, regulated, monitored. It makes a lot of sense to Republicans," he said.
Most Republicans still oppose legalization.
(Excerpt) Read more at sfgate.com ...
“Wasn’t ending Prohibition of the mind-altering drug alcohol a conservative move?”
Actually it wasn’t. It was the political left of the time that ended prohibition, although it was widely regarded as a failure. I wonder though given what we spend in fees for incarceration of drunk drivers, increased auto insurance, higher medical costs, etc. whether it was all the victory for liberty that it’s proponents claim.
Mind you I don’t favor prohibition, but to ignore the costs of rescinding it over time is intellectually dishonest.
Your conclusion doesn't follow from your premise. When the mind-altering drug alcohol was illegal, anyone who drank set out to get thoroughly drunk - witness the increased popularity of hard liquor relative to wine and beer. It's quite likely that legalization means LOWER overall levels of intoxication.
By legalizing marijuana or any other illicit drug, you increase the addiction rate as well as the use.
Again, your conclusion doesn't follow from your premise. Illegality incentivizes patterns of use that contribute to addiction (such as seeking maximum intoxication as discussed above).
While it’s been argued that the societal costs of legalization are less than those of prohibition, it’s as much of a cost shifting as anything. And it’s a cost shifting that proponents of legalization are quick to ignore. Instead of my paying increased taxes to lock dealers up, I’ll instead get to pay increased taxes for treatment of addicts
No cost shift there - and legal drugs doesn't imply or require taxpayer-funded addiction treatment, while illegal drugs does imply and require taxpayer-funded enforcement and incarceration.
as well as the increased costs of testing to ensure that people in critical positions (e.g. locomotive engineers, pilots, cops, other drivers) are not doped to the gills.
You're suggesting they're not tested now?
Not to mention the very direct, yet unquantifiable costs that I will pay if one of my family members gets hurt or killed because some knucklehead wants to toke up.
We all currently bear that cost from legal alcohol - so do you support banning that drug, or will you feel better about your dead family member if it was alcohol rather than pot involved?
That Dems were in office when it was ended does not mean it was not a conservative move - the key is that, as you say, it was widely regarded as a failure.
I wonder though given what we spend in fees for incarceration of drunk drivers, increased auto insurance, higher medical costs, etc. whether it was all the victory for liberty that it’s proponents claim.
Mind you I don’t favor prohibition
But you do favor our modern prohibition of marijuana and give as your reasons exactly those considerations. Hmmmm ...
“But you do favor our modern prohibition of marijuana and give as your reasons exactly those considerations. Hmmmm ...”
Apples to oranges. If you’re a home brewer, you realize how completely unenforceable prohibition was. Virtually any popular liquor, beer, or wine can be brewed in your kitchen with nothing more than than groceries and simple equipment.
It boils down to cost versus benefits. I see costs accruing to me but no benefits. So why should I agree to something like that?
You apparently want marijuana legalized. That’s fine. Come to your opposition with a reasonable deal in mind and you might well get it. Come to your opposition looking for a free lunch and you’ll most likely get told to forget it.
No, stop taxing the commodities to maintain the liberal Statists.....the LIBERAL leftist Statists who cling to this issue to preserve and expand their power.
People can grow their own, smoke their own, drink their own. Whatever.
We should not be enslaved to yet another “sin” tax, perpetuated by “freedom- loving” Progressive Statists and their corporate enablers (don’t forget Big Pharma’s role in Obamacare). This point is lost on the highly vulnerable logic of Libertarian extremes. And that is a shame, because they are so correct on the Federal Reserve private club that destroys our sovereign nation through debt and preserves the fake economy. It is the “fake economy” that is supported in the ever expanding State, paid for by the “hey we can tax it while making it legal” crowd.
It hasn’t worked for booze, and won’t for weed. Just creates yet another chemical dependency class which, “voila” will need to be maintained by the State, financed again by a “sin tax”, the enforcement of which leads to corruption in enforcement and legal halls.
The illegality of weed can be eliminated in one legal stroke. Overnight the prices would crash. Those who want to be stoned and impaired all day—let them— who the hell cares as long as they can then be kept from positions of responsibility by law derived from demonstrable scientific facts (like airline pilots, bus drivers, etc.) and not harm other citizens. And not treat them for addiction on our nickel (or cancer causality) either (same way, we shouldn’t for drunks). As in the days of corn liquor taxation, this is one of political power. It is the Whiskey Rebellion all over again— and favors the big outfits (the plantation class large distillers in that day) over a free populace.
We don’t ban tobacco, we limit it’s effects, taking a piece out of every interest in it. There shouldn’t be any tobacco tax, or booze tax. We shouldn’t ban weed (save a lot on enforcement), but limit the effects of free use and we shouldn’t tax it either. But for God’s sake, we shouldn’t be in bed with RJR/Nabisco et. al. who are positioned to direct the taxation— to fund Big Govt. freedom destroying agencies (EPA, Education etc.)— and let them dictate policy. In any case, there is already a healthy underground, tax free business in both booze and weed, and plenty available without the help of Big Govt. friends and their corporate cronies.
Be damned if this “freedom” then funds an even larger pestilent meddling State for the sake of opportunists. Progressive Statists have no problem enslaving us to maintain their power— and their friends are mighty strange— RJR? North Carolinians and Virginians know what I mean, what with the ridiculous state Alcohol Beverage Control Boards whose “sales revenue” funds——local schools!! Nuts and warped.
Deo Vindice.
I see no evidence that marijuana prohibition is enforceable - and home growing is part of the reason it isn't.
I see costs accruing to me
I've pointed out the flaws in the arguments for the existence of such cost increases. (Not that I expect to change your mind, but so you don't mislead anyone else.)
I see your point. I've never advanced taxability as an argument for legalization - nor, as far as I know, have any libertarians. (But it's certainly not an argument against legalization ... not that you said it was.)
“I see no evidence that marijuana prohibition is enforceable - and home growing is part of the reason it isn’t.”
I would agree that home growing small quantities is difficult to catch. Brewing relatively robust quantities of alcohol is not difficult to conceal.
“I’ve pointed out the flaws in the arguments for the existence of such cost increases.”
And, as usual, proponents of legalization ignore the costs or minimize them. And that by the way is why pot isn’t already legal: if the proponents would be reasonably straightforward on the negative side of the equation, those problems could probably be dealt with. But instead it’s unicorns and sunshine, not the reality that we’ve seen in places like the Netherlands.
And, as usual, proponents of legalization ignore the costs or minimize them.
No, they point out how opponents exaggerate them - as I did in post #42.
the reality that we’ve seen in places like the Netherlands.
Netherlands decriminalized, not legalized - growing is still illegal. What is the reality you claim to have seen there?
You're not one of those Wickard Commerce Clause supporters, are you?
Pot smokers and libertarians should be AFRAID of just that...regulated and monitored.
Don’t forget what “they” did to tobacco. Sure, pot will be legal but illegal to smoke it anywhere.
IMO, the best thing is to keep the status quo and just decriminalize it. Don’t ask, don’t tell. Get caught smoking a bowl in public, get a ticket.
Just take a review of all the laws about smoking. Do pot smokers want that?
Be careful what you wish for when it comes to busy-body government bureaucrats.
Whiskey is legal and its use sometimes causes more problems, even though I personally like the stuff.
Don’t forget what “they” did to tobacco. Sure, pot will be legal but illegal to smoke it anywhere.
No, NOW it's illegal to smoke it anywhere (or even possess it) - under regulation it would at least be legal to possess, and to smoke in one's own home.
Bingo, we finally have a winner.
Whatever side of the fence you fall on as a conservative, hopefully we can agree that regulating the use of marijuana (or alcohol or tobacco for that matter) is not within the constitutional authority of the federal government.
The states do have the authority regulate these things, but not the federal government.
If we could just agree on this one point, we'd take a giant leap forward in this discussion.
Really? Legal to smoke in your home? Again, have you not paid attention to some states laws and proposed laws on tobacco? They are even trying to ban smoking in your home 1)if you have kids or 2) a neighbor can say they are effected.
Of course, super blue states.
Still would leave marijuana less restricted than now.
Do you support their Tenth Amendment authority to enact those policies without fedgov interference via the expansive Commerce Clause?
If it were legal, it would be cheap. You could cook with it or make tea if you were concerned about lung problems from smoke. So, this is a circular argument--laws make it expensive, because it's expensive it's much more affordable to smoke it, smoke is bad for you, so it can't be legalized.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.